Alternative Models of Reality

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.

Steven,

Many thanks and good luck with the reading. The math is not as difficult as you might think. I was not formally educated regarding quaternions and such. What little I know has been largely self-taught. So, I try to write and explain as clearly as possible.

The URL for the postings to viXra.org is:

http://vixra.org/author/gary_d_simpson

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

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

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?

Dear Georgina,

There is only one singular visible reality and that is infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Abstract "foundational reality" is pretentious codswallop.

Dear Steven,

You do not appear to have answered my question: Is reality visible? Let me put it to you this way, all of the popes who have ever lived have been wrong about the supposed week long piecemeal creation of the universe by an invisible God, because, obviously infinite surface am infinite in all respects including duration. All of the theoretical physicists who have ever lived have been wrong about invisible finite atoms existing in a three dimensional invisible space/time continuum. There am no way invisible atoms could assemble into any sort of visible finite particular. For instance, the hair on your head would have to consist of a different kind of atom than the atoms that formed a walking stick did. There are supposedly many identifiable elements and compounds, but all of them only have one singular visible surface. You came to this site to indulge in what you thought was superior intellectual informational sharing. You can continue to do so.

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

You said

" 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?"

I understand the distinction you make concerning the wing. I agree, the laws of physics dont exist so that a birds wing may generate lift. It is the birds wing, honed through Darwinian progression that calibrates the wing to exploit this potential of physics. We have achieved the understanding of how Darwinian biology leads to this style of complex structure.

However, complexity of the world does not begin and end with the study of biology. Photon structure has mechanical properties which have agency in the world. And atoms are wondrous in terms of their mechanical nature, the structure built of nuclear and electron bonding potentials, chemistry that initiates a host of various activities, and heat processes which lead to elemental phase changes etc. Ultimately all potentials of biology owe their existence to the pre-existing potentials of matter, so credit has to be given where its due. This credit has to be issued to the physical world in terms of its level of complexity, which is very much a subject related to fine tuning observations. When science becomes a strong advocate of ideas such as "the multiverse" based on the inferences of unexplainable complexity of the world, it takes on an amateurish feel. In terms of choosing to believe in something which has no empirical evidence or predictive ability, which might be a mandatory requirement to reinforce such a belief. And when a belief in multiverses becomes the reason to turn ones back on new ideas offering prospective explanations for complexity of the world, then science has become something to unflattering to mention out loud. I not talking about required belief of a new idea, but rather just curiosity and willingness to test ideas!

What bothers me increasingly, is that I have stepped forward with an idea which seeks to give a solution to universal complexity. An idea which goes to the effort of providing an interpretation within terms of what is already known about the world, and might be tested against logical argument and confirmed empirical measures of the world. And this community which holds its primary mantra to be "asking the foundational questions" has not engaged with me seeking to comprehend or test the validity of my idea. In a world where theory's attempting to prescribe answer for complexity can be counted on a three fingered hand, you might expect for more. I certainly do.

I want this community to engage with me, even if it's just to determine why my idea doesn't work. What do you suppose I have to do before I am honoured with acknowledgment of my existence here? Make some kind of noise perhaps? Perhaps I've been to quiet?

Goes without saying that none of this frustration is directed at you or anybody in particular:)

Hi Georgina

I can only surmise, people are ruled by a strong preconception that

1. Attempts to answer to complexities of the world is a poor quality pursuit.

2. That this effort could never lead anywhere useful.

To write off this avenue of investigation without a thought, is poor quality deduction. The clear presents of order and complexity, which has no answer in terms of conventional theory, is a glaring clue that something is missing in the mix. So glarey it may as well be likened to staring directly at the sun! Complexity and fine tuning is after all the reason we invented the multiverse, and many worlds interpretation. Extraordinary concepts to say the least! And still the notion that there might be an organisational principle responsible for the observed complexities and character of matter, doesnt warrant so much as a second thought.

Steven, the wing i mentioned was not necessarily a birds I was just thinking of an aerofoil shape and air flow. Brief to the point posts would help. You have said a great many things, what do you want considered/discussed most of all or first?

Hi Georgina

I would like people to listen to what I have to say on the subject, the possibility that Gluon activity is derived from space, that this maybe the nature of the interaction between space and matter. That fundamental force requires a prior cause, which originates with the emergence of space Auv, the observation of cosmological redshift associated with the cosmological constant, or if you prefer, Dark Energy.

I can argue the merit of this possibility twenty different ways, but most notably I can demonstrate how various empirical measures line up in support of this idea. Measures for which correlations have been known about for decades, however no interpretation could be determined that links them.

I can show how the same correlations provide an exacting mathematical solution in the case of anomalous galaxy motions, a simple remedy that is variable Gluon activity, that might be summarized as a variable baryon mass hypothesis. Not modified gravity, or an invisible particle theory, but the nature of baryons has not been properly understood.

I'm not sure how that sounds to fresh ears, but I assure you it's a very simple consideration. But it does require a person engage for comprehension. I am amazed that nothing of what I have said so far has attracted a curious and questioning mind. Thoroughly amazed!

In light of its mantra being "Foundational questioning", why doesn't this community engage with new and novel ideas?