Dear Joe Fisher,

As requested by you, I read your essay. You have a different world view. As you would have read my essay, you would be knowing that our word views are different, though we agree that there is something wrong with the mainstream world view.

The mainstream represents the view of the majority. And it is not without any reason. The mainstream view has many merits. But, even while agreeing that the mainstream has merits, we can have some disagreement with the main stream. But the problem is that we have to show that our word-views have more merits compared to the mainstream. And, that is not so easy.

You argue that your world-view is logical by putting forth questions. But you do not try to show that your world-view has any relative merits.

    Dear Jose,

    Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the real room you are presently in have a real complete floor surface, a real complete ceiling surface, and four real complete wall surfaces? Does everything in the room have a real complete surface? Did everything you have ever seen, whether it was real, or seen in a dream, or hallucinated about have a surface? This is not my minority point of view. All of the philosophers and all of the mathematicians and all of the physicists were wrong. Their absurd abstract musings concerned only an abstract universe. Unfortunately, the credentialed people at this site cannot deal with the truth. The majority of them will not vote for truth. The majority of them will not even read the truth.

    Joe Fisher

    Joe,

    Wow! very insightful and fiery commentary there about Newton and Ein. Newton is wrong i believe in his world view. Einstein if you read his layman's relativity book and also go through some of his quotes admits his system isn't much better than Newtons. I think his words were close to that space-time and the warp of his dynamics took the place of the ether, but that even a space-time fabric could be just as arbitrary as the ether. You thoughts sparked some in me. First a question that i doubt goes anywhere but might be worth a fun thought. Is light in transmission a real thing? Or is it just that we have reasonable cause for it's existence because this energy sytem (for example a star) lost energy in the amount that was picked up by some intrument distant from it. In other words, do we indirectly or directly observe and have evidence for light? I like that you say the universe is understandable once. Can't be too optimistic. I would look at the role of information more closely. You speak of nothingness with some disdain. What science has yet to pick up on is that nothingness is a great potential.But to have a zero state nothingness like Hawking promotes does seem far fetched. I think whether nothing exists, some zero state or a "something" before this universe existed, whether that nothingness is real or not is a great point to think about for this time in science. Your essay does this, so thank you sir!

      William,

      I have read the online English translation of Einstein's 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, and in my estimation, it is the most unrealistic book that has ever been written. Einstein has an imaginary passenger throwing an imaginary rock off an imaginary train while an imaginary observer on an imaginary embankment watches to see if the phantom rock arcs in flight.

      Does everybody at this site not realize that I have proven that Einstein was completely wrong about the real Universe? You people are supposed to cherish truth above all things, yet you all ignorantly refuse to credit me with my momentous discovery.

      Joe Fisher

      Dear Joe,

      You seem to imply in your essay that science believes in an abstract realm that underlies everything and explains everything. I think that what you say is correct: much of science DOES believe in an abstract realm, though the people involved would claim otherwise.

      However, it is not necessary to believe in an abstract reality to do science. You yourself represent your thought-experience of reality (e.g. a real elephant) with symbols (i.e. the spoken word or written word "elephant", or even a stick-figure drawing of an elephant). Similarly, scientists represent their experience of reality with written and spoken symbols. Both the symbols and the thought-experience are as physically real as the actual elephant: they are physical reality - they are not abstract.

      The problem occurs when scientists or philosophers mistakenly think that the symbols or the thoughts are disconnected from physical reality. I concur with your conclusion: "The real Universe am".

      Cheers,

      Lorraine

        Dear Lorraine,

        My essay proves that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity, Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING. All of the philosophers were wrong about their abstract musings. Pathetically, none of the folk who have read my essay seems to understand its real importance. Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org monitor of the contest labeled part of a comment I posted on some of my fellow essayists sites: "OBNOXIOUS SPAM."

        Joe Fisher

        Joe,

        Your essay is poorly written, and devoid of any academic or intellectual merit, or insight. I would posit that you are confusing the term 'realist' with 'fantasist.

        I point you to the following blog, as I have no doubt its contents will pique your interest: http://www.physicsgroupie.com/2009/07/physics-crackpots.html

        Humbly,

        Chris

        Dear Chris,

        Thank you for leaving a comment. I am sorry that you did not understand my essay.

        Joe Fisher

        My rating made only a slight difference. But as the competition ends congrats for looking at and commenting on many essays even if we don't agree on all points.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

          Dear Akimbo,

          Thank you for reading my essay and for rating it.

          Joe Fisher