Life under ground Cosmic mystery and physical reality by Petio Hristov

Dear Author Hristov,

I really enjoyed reading your hyper-imaginative abstractions filled essay and I do hope that it does well in the competition.

I do have a minor quibble about your essay that I hope you will not mind me mentioning. Reality is unique, once. There are no abstract laws of uniqueness. There are no abstract levels of uniqueness.

With regards,

Joe Fisher

Hi Petio,

I have read your fascinating, unusual essay. Unfortunately I don't think you paid attention to the evaluation criteria but wrote the essay you wanted to write outlining the findings of your personal research.From the evaluation criteria on the contest information page."(Note: While this topic is broad, successful essays will not use this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the author's pet topic, but will rather keep as their central focus the theme of how humanity should steer the future.)"

Your last paragraph was the only part of the essay that I could see as directly relevant to the essay question. Interestingly that we have both suggested that that might be a solution. Hopefully sharing your ideas is more important to you than winning. Regards, Georgina

Hi Petio,

I'm sorry if you feel I have not thought sufficiently about your essay.

I have not yet given any votes, preferring first to read as many essays as I feel able to read.

I have not talked about entropy in my essay.

Dear Petio,

I read your essay with a great interest. Your ideas are very original and modern. Yes, today it is important for overcoming of modern crisis of fundamental knowledge, "interpretation and representation crisis" (T.Romanovskaya), "understanding crisis" deep synthesis of all knowledge accumulated by Humanity, the ekzoteric and esoteric. The traditional knowledge gives new ideas. The ancient idea of cycles is extraordinary actual for modern fundamental science. The knowledge of ancient Egypt, India and China conceals in itself many riddles. Sources of mathematics lie in knowledge of Ancient Egypt and are even deeper. The Humanity is on the threshold of eonic thinking: «Aion is a child playing, playing checkers; power over the world belongs to the child.»(Heraclites). Problem of fundamental science it is to solve a mystery of "the game law" in Space.

Updating of concepts "law", "the nature law", "time" and their deeper understanding is very important also. Picture of the world of physics should be the same rich meanings of the «LifeWorld»(E.Husserl) as the world picture lyricists. Otherwise it will be difficult to steer the Future.My appreciation of your ideas.

Thank FQXi that brings together people for "brainstorming" on very important topics of modern Humanity and modern Science!

I invite you to comment on and appreciate my essay.

High regard,

Vladimir

Dear Petio,

Thank you very much for your comment and the invitation to the group of associates. I am pleased to inform you my address ideabank@yandex.ru

Best regards,

Vladimir

Joe Fisher,

Regarding your quote: "Reality is unique, once. There are no abstract laws of uniqueness. There are no abstract levels of uniqueness."

Anything can be disputed, but common sense is based in using all the information available to us for our greatest long-term benefit.

Inspiration comes from diverse sources. My own model of relativity came from being asked "What is nothing?" by Ludwig several years ago; what should have been an elusive and esoteric question.

The purpose of Axiom of Choice is to define a unique quality as the minimum foundation under which mathematics is causally possible. Fundamental unique causal properties that repeat. The purpose of "Axiom of Choice extended to include Relativity" is to define a unique quality as the minimum foundation under which all of "physics" is causally possible (QESdunn).

The uniqueness is not that there is a oneness of something in all the universe, but that the universe is composed of many identical entities; i.e. quantum causality. This does NOT mean that these causal entities themselves cannot be further refined in understanding.

I have not as yet read Petio's essay, my comment is only based upon your expression related to uniqueness. To assert there is no uniqueness also asserts that mathematics is without purpose related to physics.

James Dunn

Petio,

Interesting relationships related to what we consider an ancient civilization. Egyptian tech took place beginning around 3000 BC; a few thousand years ago. About 1000 years after the first historical writings became available. At the time, Persia was considered the center of intellectual activities. My wife is a descendant of King Mirmiran who ruled around that same time and her family still maintains a family tree from that time. So not surprisingly, people of diverse cultures will have been philosophers based in the perspectives that seemed to apply to their lives.

What I am seeing is basic control theory potentially realized thousands of years ago. The relationships you have expressed have potential relationships to Axiom of Choice, and feedback functions. These are now presently broadly recognized and utilized on almost everything we presently do. Control Theory is part of ALL technology and has evolved far beyond the simple expressions related by Egyptian philosophers. HOWEVER, the Egyptians based upon your essay, did seem to express a broader consideration related to control theory. The foundations of String Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity perhaps.

The expressions commingling animals and vegetation with the relationships is characteristic of hieroglyphics. These were meant as metaphorical expressions that could be broadly conveyed through life's experience examples. Egyptians began making modifiers using triangles and other abstract symbols to depict details not expressible with observable objects alone. We presently are not so evolved from "Ancient" Egyptians. We are still babies in terms of a civilization, still clinging to over 100,000 diverse religions that are based on irrationally narrow self-serving perspectives.

Science studies "God's Works" and attempts to remove all influences of man. Religions study "Man's Works" and attributes inspirations (mens limited thoughts) to God. So really, science is the only works of man that attempts to understand God through God's Works and not mans works.

Your Law of Unity translates more precisely to Axiom of Choice. And your Law of Conversion seems to be related to the Law of Conservation.

Laws are in generally highly repeatable observations but are not absolutes. Depending upon perspectives considered, Laws do not necessarily hold true.

Your work from a historical perspective is significant. But for Steering the Future of Humanity it needs to be updated into terms that people can relate to using their present life experiences. Most people reading these discussions have no significant references related to Egyptian metaphorical literature.

So based upon these foundations, I must decline your offer. My perspective though sharing a common base in Control Theory, seems to already take into account the breadth of your related information. If you see a perspective in "Axiom of Choice extended to include Relativity" on Vixra and/or QESdunn that is not inclusive of one or more of the relationships you are trying to express, please contact me at: http://www.ua-kits.com/frontpage/index.php/contact-us/

I am not all knowledgeable and I invite your perspectives.

Correction: "To assert there is no uniqueness also asserts that mathematics is without purpose related to physics."

To assert there is no uniqueness also asserts that mathematics is without purpose related to physics related to the foundations of cosmology.

Obviously mathematics is highly related to engineering and science where in terms of repeatable practices probability and error analysis provide useful "perspectives and relationships within limits".

James Dunn

Dear Petio Hristov,

Evidently, you have not read my essay carefully enough, and you have not read my Theory of Inert Light that I have posted in the comments boxes of several of my fellow essayists. I will repost my Inert Light Theory in your assay's comments box. There is no need for you to form a group "to gain knowledge of the General Theory of Unity." Only unique reality is unified, once.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based on any normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at a constant speed. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that has to be less than the constant speed the surface travels at. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract. Surfaces and sub-surfaces can be exchanged by the application of natural or fabricated force. The surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic can never be altered. This is why matter cannot be destroyed. This is why anti-matter can never be created. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Although scientists insist that light can be absorbed, or reflected, or refracted, this is additional proof that light cannot have a surface. It would be physically impossible for a surface to absorb another surface, or reflect another surface, or refract another surface.

Abstract theory cannot ever have unification because all abstractions are perfectly unreal. Only reality is unified because there is only one unique reality.

Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. When a light radiant strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed mingled sub-sub and sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

Joe Fisher

Dear Petio, Thank you very much for your invitation to the working group of associates and I wait for the books for understand the General Theory of Unity.

Best regargs, Alexander Ilyanok a-ilyanok@hotmail.ru