Alternative Models of Reality

Dear Joe Fisher,

I do not read anything posted by you.

Gary Simpson

Dear Gary D Simpson, and all readers,

Unfortunately, you do not appear to have read the first comment posted in this area written by Dr. Brendan Foster that reads: "If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)"

After spending years researching reality, I have concluded that only Nature could provide the simplest reality obtainable.

The real visible Universe must consist of only one unified infinite visible surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. The Gobi Desert and the Atlantic Ocean and Polar Icecaps are all naturally formed. The one visible thing that they have in common is that each of them has a complete surface. Not only that, each grain of sand in the Gobi Desert, each fish and strand of seaweed in the Atlantic Ocean and each icicle and flake of snow located at the Polar Icecaps also have a complete surface. The Tower of London and the Great Wall of China and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge are all man-made constructions. The only one thing they have in common is that all three of them have a complete visible surface. Each rivet and piece of angle iron and brick also has a visible surface. Only infinite surface has ever existed. There has never been any space or holes in that infinite surface.

I would really appreciate any feedback you may care to offer.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Steven, and all readers,

Unfortunately, you do not appear to have read the first comment posted in this area written by Dr. Brendan Foster that reads: "If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)"

After spending years researching reality, I have concluded that only Nature could provide the simplest reality obtainable.

The real visible Universe must consist of only one unified infinite visible surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. The Gobi Desert and the Atlantic Ocean and Polar Icecaps are all naturally formed. The one visible thing that they have in common is that each of them has a complete surface. Not only that, each grain of sand in the Gobi Desert, each fish and strand of seaweed in the Atlantic Ocean and each icicle and flake of snow located at the Polar Icecaps also have a complete surface. The Tower of London and the Great Wall of China and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge are all man-made constructions. The only one thing they have in common is that all three of them have a complete visible surface. Each rivet and piece of angle iron and brick also has a visible surface. Only infinite surface has ever existed. There has never been any space or holes in that infinite surface.

I would really appreciate any feedback you may care to offer.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

All,

I am curious, does anyone read the posting of Joe Fisher? If so, can someone articulate in their own words what he believes and how that belief would be empirically tested.

I am also curious, does anyone read my posts:-)

On a more serious note, what is the difference between an earnest amateur and a complete crack pot? I'm not pointing my finger at anyone in particular ... none of us will know the truth until after it is discovered and then everyone will claim to have known it all along.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Hi Gary

Yeah I'm kind of wondering the same thing. If people are reading mine then they arent placing comment. I wouldnt have expected my approach to appeal to everybody, but I would have thought somebody here would find something of it interesting. I had thought my essay score was a reflection of how interesting people found the topics. That in the lee of the contest I might have people interested to talk about it. Not the case.

I hadnt looked at your work before now. Now that I have I see it delves into extra dimensions, and involving mathematical descriptions. If you only had one paragraph with which to explain the main theme of your work and what you feel it achieves, then what would you say?

Steve

Halton Arp's observations that demonstrate an association between quasars and a galaxy of their apparent origin. They are visually evident. At face value, its reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Quark separation which spontaneously generates new quarks is also reminiscent of life's process of cellular division. Highly suggestive observations that imply matters ability to replicate itself.

When cells divide in the process of replicating themselves, it allows for genetic drift, which compounds changes over many generations and allows for the process of natural selection and evolution. This is how highly complex systems emerge within biology. The question of complexity in physics is a huge problem to answer, and for which SMoC doesnt have the slightest grapple on. Thats why there is speculation about multiverses, to attempt explain complexity of the world. Could this be the mechanism that explains our fine tuned universe, and the emergence of articulated structure on atomic and cosmological scales? Let us dare to speculate.

Life on earth builds complex ecosystems, but all these ecosystems have one thing in common. It is the simplest life forms which tap into and exploit a "natural energy potential" which then becomes a food chain for organisms of increasing complexity. Such as oceanic Algae which exploits the suns energy potential, Algae eaten by krill, krill eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, and in tern eaten by highly complex organisms like tuna, sharks, dolphins, whales, birds etc etc. Give nature a natural energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence.

Now I jump to a concept that on first appraisal seams bonkers. But given a chance it achieves things you wouldnt expect.

I reiterate. Give nature a natural energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. With this in mind, space is thought to contain an emergent energy, which takes its measure from cosmological redshift and referred to as Auv within theory of general relativity. Pop media refer to as mysterious Dark Energy. Presumably whatever Dark Energy is, it is exploiting a natural energy potential to preliterate itself. So let us speculate that DE might serve as the foundation of a system from which complexity has arisen, complexity in the form of the material baryonic universe that we are made of. If this were to be the case, then what clue can we assume from it that we might be able to conceptually test?

The link that stands unbroken between Algae and organisms of higher complexity within Earth ecosystems, is the passing of the suns energy from one organism to the next. One organism eats another, and I emphasize the term "metabolism" as the process that enables the energy transfer. So if we're looking at this circumstance with a view to obtaining insight that we might test, then let us test the idea that atomic forces are enabled by a process akin to "metabolism". A metabolism which converts Dark Energy into atomic activity. Could this be the nature of the interaction between space and matter that would marry quantum mechanics with general relativity? The conventional approach to atomic force is "fundamental force". The term "Fundamental" can be interpreted as "first cause" or "original cause" but of course there is no prior cause attributed to the work effort that fundamental forces are capable of. This amounts to it being a "causeless work effort". So by ascribing the ability for atomic forces to undertake work actions, to a process of interaction that is a metabolism between Dark Energy and Baryon matter, it gives us a concept to test further.

For this hypothesis to yield anything further of interest, it would have to be demonstrated that there was a prospective link between Auv and Tuv. That is to say, the value assigned to the emergence of space Auv, and the value assigned to universal Baryons Tuv. And whats amazing, is that this connection is clearly identifiable and has been known about for decades. But the conventional cosmological model couldn't make sense of these connections between the equality of Auv and Tuv, and so has been put aside as a mere curiosity. Rather than listen to me going on about them, here is a short 9 minute video of Paul Dirac making a muddle of these associations by trying to interpret them within the conventional model. But pay attention to where he derives the parameters of his hypothesis from and you will see they are indeed an indication of the associations needed if atomic forces originate from an interaction with space, that in term originates as Dark Energies emergence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8mUyq_Wwg

Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. Dark Energy might be the result of just such an energy potential, and which serves as the basis of an integrated system able to compound changes, leading to ever higher levels of order and complexity of the world. Atomic and cosmological structure provided an explanation.

Hello Steve,

I seldom comment on posts that I read unless I have a question or something useful to say. I did not read your essay during the contest but I have now done so. I see that you argue for Darwinism. That is as good an explanation as any and several of the essay that I read made similar arguments.

If I had to describe what I am attempting to do, I would say that I am reimagining physics using the mathematics of Hamilton rather than the mathematics of Riemann and Grassmann. What have I accomplished? See "Quaternion Dynamics Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. They are all posted to viXra.org. For me, the connection between the math and the physics is Equation 2 in my 2017 essay.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Dear Gary and Steven,

I have read your essays and I have read your comments. Unfortunately, you do not appear to understand simplicity..Dr. Brendan Foster, who happens to be the administrator of this site clearly stated in the first comment: ""If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)"

With best regards,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Gary and Steven,

I have read your essays and I have read your comments. Unfortunately, you do not appear to understand simplicity..Dr. Brendan Foster, who happens to be the administrator of this site clearly stated in the first comment: ""If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)"

With best regards,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Gary

You read my essay! Thats nice of you. I will return the favor and have a look at your work. Maths is not my strong suit, but I'm sure I can make some sense of it.

I'm perhaps a good audience for you, because I am of the opinion that maths is merely the tool set from which several internally consistent mathematical interpretations of natural are possible. If you have fashioned an alternative mathematical model then I'm willing to judge it on its own merit. In my opinion, to many people confuse mathematics with the theory, but maths is only a tool employed to describe the theory. When the maths becomes the theory, then a person handicaps themselves. Its an important distinction. The misconception can lead advocates of general relativity for example, to resist all proposed amendments, because the maths has been wrongfully instated as the sacred cow.

Thank you Gary

I will have a look. I dont mind being prompted, and it will remind me in event that I get distracted :) But yes I am interested.

Steve

I'm practising variations on my theme. Heres another one

The universal and all structures within as a singular fractal process. From micro atomic structure through to macro cosmological structure, for which it has long been noted share a remarkably similar structural theme as one another. Electron shells surrounding atomic nucleus resembling the orbit of planets around stars. Further more, that atoms glued together to form molecular chains of atoms, resemble not only solar systems that build the composite structures of galaxies, but also the filaments and walls of galaxies that resemble elaborate molecules, but are the cosmological web. The universe on the smallest and grandest scales.

What I find most fascinating, is the origin of that which motivates the formation of all these structures. Obviously it is the electromagnetic force which motivates the molecular structure building, which is responsible for electron bonding that builds rocks and humans. But there is an aspect which closely relates the building of molecular structure to that of cosmological structure, which it seems to me is selectively overlooked. It is the property of matter that is mass, that responds to gravitational fields and which therefore motivates cosmological structure building, planets, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters. It is the Gluon within the nucleus of the atom which is primarily responsible for the generation of mass. What becomes supremely interesting about this, is what Gluons and Electromagnetism share in common with one another, and in light of the fact they are collectively responsible for all universal structure.

Both Gluons and Electromagnetism are treated within conventional theory, as the mediators of fundamental force. Also, both of these forces are ascribed to the theory of charge, to describe their undelaying mechanics, QCD and QED within respective order. Also, Gluons and EM are associated with one another in respect of a proportional magnitude, that mass is a measure of Gluon activity, and the value of mass is a very tidy summed multiple of the value of the propagation speed of EM. The speed of light, as is famously represented by E=MC2, mass = kg x C x C. Or I could have said, and to press my point home, Gluon activity = kg x C x C.

So the take home point becomes, note that Gluons and EM are responsible for all universal structure building, and that both of these properties of matter are remarkably similar to one another. Focus on their similarities.

The question becomes, why and how do Gluons and EM conspire to build the universal we witness around us?

Lets start with the "How" question. Conventional theory ascribes to the concept of "fundamental force". Which could just as easily be termed as, "force with no prior cause". The problem with this notion, is that these forces are contributing work effort to the world, and how can work effort be causeless? If instead atomic activity is enabled by the interaction which exists between space and matter, an energy transfer, then fundamental forces can be ascribed to having a prior cause.

Now the "why" question. Why would this circumstance have arisen, whereby the atomic activity via the actions of Gluons and EM, would be in the business of consuming an energy potential of space, and directing it to building articulated elaborate structures? And this is where I return to the theme of my original post. Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence, leading to heightened levels of complexity. This is the new light I would like people to shine on the observation and measure of cosmological redshift, the cosmological constant, Dark Energy. An entity which has emerged from a natural energy potential with the ability to proliferate itself, which came to serve as the basis of a Darwinian circumstance of emergence which has led to a universe of compounded complexity and structured order. This is why Gluon and EM activity are reliant on the interaction with space that brings them energy, which in turn gives them the ability to mediate force, which is directed through evolved purposeful actions to build the universe we observe around us. The baryonic universe is structured in such a way that is optimised for its reason for existence, which is to interact efficiently with Auv space. Or Dark Energy, if you prefer.

In this respect, all the agencies of matter can be viewed as having reasons, and reasons are the basis of meaning. SMoC doesn't trade in meanings, because chance occurrences don't prescribe them. Whereas this explanation offers natural meanings in abundance, even to the extent of suggesting that molecular bonds form ridged bodies that enable persistent structures in a highly kinetically energetic universe. EM electron bonds glue matter together to maintain optimized structure. Give electron bonds a reason, and you've given meaning for chemistry which is the property of matter which builds electron bonds. Give chemistry a reason, and you can give meaning to why there are wet worlds, as water can be viewed as a universal solvent which facilitates chemical reactions that build the electron bonds that form rocks, that cements the earth's surface into a ridged rocky sheet. So given reasons for universal complexities and how it emerged, and resulted in wet planets and electron bonds and chemistry, then that's an explanation of natural reasons that gives meaning to emergence of life and therefore humans. Nature evolved atomic processed to a level of complexity for reasons other than life, but known the less life became a possibility.

I was asked this question!

Aside from the word "evolution" what parallels are there between a process occurring on a vast scale involving predictable nuclear processes, and one at a small scale involving random chemical mutations selected for and against by environmental pressures?

To which I answered!!

Nuclear fusion is a process occurring on a vast scale, involved in the process of generating heat within stars, providing the force that keeps stars buoyant against gravitational collapse. Whats interesting is that if fusion rates were other than what they are, stars wouldnt exist. To sensitive a reaction and stars explode as they form. Not sensitive enough and stars dont generate enough heat, gravity wins they collapse. This is one of the parameters attributed to the universal fine tuning problem.

Within my hypothesis, Stars are of an optimized physical state evolved for efficiency of interaction with Auv space. So the agency of matter we refer to as fusion is selectively calibrated to serve the purpose it is observed in the function of. The conventional approach by contrast, can only ascribe this agency of matter to being the product of lucky chance. As in, lucky the universe accidentally created this unlikely circumstance or else the universe would be dark, and wouldnt give rise to life.

You want a contrasted example concerning evolved biology.

Take your pick. Thats what typifies an evolved state, its calibrated state that enables the necessary agencies for an organisms survival. It is evolved as a state, that is also its reason for existence. A birds aerodynamics that enables it to fly. A dolphins hydrodynamics that enables efficient swimming. Human ability for comprehension which enables us to adapt, but also listen and rationalize new and novel ideas ;)

Dear Steven,

May I please ask you one question? Does reality consist of a single visible surface that every eye can see?

I do hope that you will answer my question.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Hi Joe

I dont believe in extra dimensions beyond three. Time is not an extra dimension. The existence of time is inferred from motion, motion of objects, and with more recent advances in science, from the motions or rate of processes internal of the atom.

So if you mean, space is a single surface within which everything exists, then I could go along with that.

Joe, if you will take some friendly advice. If you join in somebody elses thread, you should engage with them about their idea. Dont impose your ideas on their space. Engage with them politely, then they might be inclined to join you on your thread, where you can engage them in your ideas. As a general rule.

Steve

Dear Steven,

I did not ask you about your dimensional beliefs. Let me try again. Is reality visible?

As for threads, as I have now pointed out twice to you and Gary Simpson, "Dr. Brendan Foster, who happens to be the administrator of this site clearly stated in the first comment: ""If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)"

I have notified Professor Stephen Hawking and his boss, Professor Nigel Peake of my singular infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light proposition, and they have not disputed one word of it. Please remember this Steven; Truth is always self-evident. Only false ever needs explanation.

Best regards,

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Joe, foundational reality is not visible. Vision is the product of a process. Your model does not provide the means for that process to occur. It is a non starter.

Hi Georgina Woodward

I've read a good deal of your content on this forum. I judge your ideas and opinions well. Do my ideas inspire any curiosity of you?

I'm beginning to wonder about FQXi. The builders of this castle community have laid the incentives to draw people like you, me and others here. We are a particular breed who are curious about the world and how it works, and have formed ideas of our own we might like to share. However, I am developing a distinct feeling that I stand beyond a closed drawbridge, and nobody willing to engage me from behind the high walls and across the mote.

I have ideas which I make effort to form logical argument, and also evidence based on interpretation or empirical measures. But having the ability to rationalize and defend my ideas serves me no purpose if this community assigns me as a class not worthy of their engagement.

Will nobody test my ideas? See if I can defend them?

Steven, I have read a lot of what you have written on this site about many diverse subjects. I can't comment on everything. If you read my essay you would know that I do not think that physics and chemistry occurs with or for purpose but that things happen which can appear purposeful as they serve functions. Air does not flow faster over the curved surface of a wing so that it can become airborne but rather the air does flow faster and so the wing functions for flight. That the universe is suitable for life does not mean it was made with that purpose, but as it is what it is, it functions to support life evolved under those conditions. Was there something in particular you wanted to discuss?