How to use Theory of Everything for saving earth? by Janko Kokosar

Janko,

That was a brilliantly original read. You summed up most of science. But the shoes are still flying.

Of course many think they've found the basis for the TOE. If it starts with Unification of Classic and Quanta then I'm quite convinced I've made a big start too. But I estimated in 2010 it would take at least another 10 years before science was able to 'see' it, (fqxi essay; '2020 vision', 2011). Perhaps you could read my effort this year and let me know if I'm a crackpot!

Funnily enough, the cosmological implications include life after death in cyclic big blasts! so I think you have it. (Paper just accepted in a non major journal, preprint here;A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. )

But I hope you'll read my essay rather than that first.

Very well done with yours. I can't imagine why it's languishing so badly so hope my score helps. Best of luck for a continued recovery!

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Author Janko Kokosar

It is great when meeting who also is the passionate of TOE and the most is the argument of your very interesting.

Unfortunately I can only assess you with 10 points .

Of course, along with best wishes - Hải.CaoHoàng

But do not understand why I still can not use the evaluation system - I will come back after it was fixed.

Incidents in my evaluation had to be overcome, 10 points for your essay.

Hải.CaoHoàng

Janko,

Time grows short, so I am revisited those I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I dind't rate it before. Hope you enjoyed mine.

Jim

Dear Janko,

As I promised in my FQXi page, I have read your nice and particular Essay. Here are my comments/questions:

1) Your Novel-Essay starts in 2049. It will be fantastic if in only 35 years humanity will become so intelligent that "Economy is subordinate to ecology"!

2) I completely agree with Hadley's statement that "it is necessary to wake up genuine interest in TOE without argumentation why it is necessary to save the earth". I think that this endorses my Essay of this year.

3) I agree that it is not absolutely forbidden that information could be more primal than survival!

4) The statement that "the universe without emotions (consciousness) does not exist" is consistent with anthropic principle.

5) The needing to be "open mind" in science is not only in the issue of professionals versus amateurs. There are indeed various people who are professionals, i.e. working in academies, universities, research centres, who challenge mainstream science, but they are isolated and often defined as "cranks". On the other hand, there are various real cranks who do not understand what they are speaking about. The problem is quite complex. In general, I also criticize some points of mainstream science and I am all in favour of being open minded about alternatives, but they must be properly formulated and plausible scientific proposals.

6) The issue that "scientists incorrectly estimate probabilities for successful ideas and thus they do not read precisely theories where probability for correctness is not zero" is also "political". It is extremely difficult for a scientist who became rich and famous for a theory to accept that such a theory could be, even partially, wrong, and, in turn to consider that a better theory could exist.

7) I do not like estimations claiming that TOE will arise in the next 10, 20, 30,.... years. Hawking failed twice in such an estimating and Witten failed too. Maybe TOE does not exists, or, if it exists, we can arrive to it only asymptotically.

8) Why did you choice Fotini Markopoulou to obtain both quantum gravity and TOE?

9) Sorry, but Hawking never claimed that black holes do not exist. His last paper has been misinterpret. You can find a good explanation of this issue here: http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2014/01/if-it-quacks-like-black-hole.html, although I disagree with Hossenfelder's defense of firewalls while I agree with Hawking point of view on this issue.

10) "all of them were so connected that all the universe became as one person": this is an exponential anthropic principle!

In any case, I have a lot of fun in reading your peculiar Essay. Thus, I will give you an high score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Janko,

That was fabulous.... It was entertaining and thought provoking.... Part Physics and part Theatre. I am still grinning. You are a Master and a Rascal! I do not think you should try to improve your English... It can not get any better!

I like that you slipped in your thesis: "A new world was originating. This was a world where thoughts were more important than matter, and more and more they had realized that foundations of everything are thoughts."

You are very underrated,

Don Limuti

Janko,

Thank you for an entertaining and idea-filled essay. I especially liked it when you write: "I think that it is necessary to wake up genuine interest in TOE without argumentation why it is necessary to save the earth. I also cannot explain clearly how TOE should help to save earth, but my intuition tells me that it will help."

While we wait for the TOE, we will need all the help we can get! My bet is on education, but as all the wonderful essays in this contest show, there are many, many ways to tackle the issue!

Good luck in the contest,

Marc

Anonymous was me!

Marc

dear Janko,

Thank you for reading my essay,

I read with great pleasure yours.

You wrote : "We need to explain consciousness to confirm whether "atheism" is in concordance with science" My perception of Total Simultaneity is one (scientific) way of explaining our reality and how it is emerging. Atheism is another approach that could accept my perception because when you are talking about a TOE , this is an effort to do so. The name of a "creator" has become the "observer" like in QM , so it is Consciousness that is The Creator based on the scientific references I gave, all the other Names of GOD are also creations of the human consciousness, Belief is just another way of explaining "reality".

I like very much the text of Phil Gibbs...

Life after death, I feel so free to classify this as the same as life before birth, The Non-caused Consciousness in TS is eternal and non causal so the life line as created by its caused part here in this causal reality is only a blink of the totality, there are an infinity of "AVAILABLE" YOU's in TS. So life after death in this causal reality life line will be available but therefore we must have MORE contact (entanglement) with the non causal Consciousness in TS, so that the Eternal Now Moments of the other YOU's can be brought into this causal reality. The question however is if you want to imprison that YOU in this reality ?

I will sent you on your private mail my latest article that is still in review by Deepak Chopra.

Good luck and best regards.

Wilhelmus

Dear Janko Kokosar,

You have a number of interesting points in your essay. I particularly like your statement that "this will contains also inertia." That is a very nice observation that I had not thought of but it fits my ideas as well.

You also speculate that the universe does not exist without consciousness. As I interpret this statement I agree with you.

Part of your focus is government support for a TOE, but I do not believe a theory of everything will come out of government efforts. Instead a Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, or Schrodinger will find the TOE through his own efforts. It will not require a large hadron collider, only a large brain.

I also like your statement: "It is known that consciousness is unexplained, but this fact is not stressed in books for students." Instead students are led to believe that conscious awareness and will arise from Darwinian evolution, which is unproven and almost certainly false.

I like your analogy of FQXi and viXra to free markets. And I agree with most of the statements expressed in your comment on my page.

You have far too many interesting observations and remarks to comment on them all, but your essay was a pleasure to read. Thanks for reading my essay and commenting on it and thanks for your essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Janko

I had a lot of fun reading your essay and I think it. was a bolt but good choice to write a science fiction story. I like your optimism, although I don't share it.

I'm reading your paper on relativistic mass and hope I can soon comment on that.

My rating shoud bring you up a bit.

Regards

Luca

Janko,

First of all, it's very daring and clever of you to include real contributors to this contest and other actual people as "characters" in your story. I also approve of bringing more amateurs - carefully, however - into the research process. It will take a little more time to digest your points, I'd rather do it well than quickly. That's my comment so far and I will be back (remind me if need be.)

- Neil Bates

The conclusion to your essay is similar to Asimov's "Last Question."

Dear Janko,

I think yours is a very interesting essay which, in a very accessible way, discusses important issues relevant to the future of humanity, including consciousness and information.

I am looking forward to following up and reading the references at the end of your essay when I have more time.

Regards,

Lorraine.