Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for your comment. My essay explains how the real Universe is occurring. Reality does not have an abstract uncommon, but abstract interesting perspective. I did not mistake an abstract image of an abstract object for the abstract object itself. You did that. Abstract images may be abstractly conveyed by abstract traveling abstract light, however, real light can only appear provided it is seen as adhering to a real surface that is traveling at the constant speed of surface.

Only an abstract universe could come from an abstract nothing.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

The "Sunya" as it is called in Sanskrit supposedly holds the uproots to reality which when expounded given the gift of sublets of "sifr" in Arabic and "Zero" in English.

Your quest for zero is an answer for the empty space.

Great subject! Good luck!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

    Thank you ever so much for your gracious comment.

    Joe Fisher

    Dear Joe,

    I left an answer to your response over on my thread. I am willing to consider your viewpoint if it provides answers to the riddles in our cosmology.

    This year you have not used the words, 'unique', 'once' and 'codswallop' as much as you used to. You have instead emphasized this year on the word 'abstract'. This suggests that Joe Fisher is a manifestation of reality and is unique once and is not abstract.

    If you want to argue on cosmological models then I think you can start a dialectic on the Alternative Cosmology models forum which does not require email alerts.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    Dear Joe,

    I read with great interest your essay, made in the spirit of profound Cartesian doubt. I only have one question: when Mathematics ("Queen and Servant") and Physics ("Princess on the pea") lost certainty and lost touch with reality?

    Kind regards,

    Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir,

      Thank you for your great question. The mathematicians and the physicists refused to believe their eyes and instead of paying attention to what they were actually looking at they asked themselves the stupid question about where whatever they were looking at came from. Insanely, Stephan Hawking insisted that it did not matter how reality might look now, it must all have commenced with an abstract explosion of abstract nothing. Like mindless sheep, all of the credentialed theoretical physicists have followed his unrealistic guesswork.

      Warm regards,

      Joe Fisher

      Joe,

      a very interesting essay to read. You are tackling some really important issues but it frustrates me slightly because you are taking a different explanatory pathway to my own and naturally want to yell "Hey Joe, this way".

      Its a really good point that we [without use of x-ray machines or their ilk] only see surfaces. That is, I agree, reality but I would restrict it to Image reality, a sub set of the Entirety of reality. I think re not seeing objects moving at different speeds, we are not actually seeing substantial objects themselves but our sensory systems fabrication of images of them.

      Likewise the [image of an] object can as you say get smaller [as distance between the observer and [source]object increases].Its really interesting that this facet of relativity has had little attention. Though Julian Barbour on his http://www.platonia.com/ideas.html says "Relativity of size is such an attractive principle, I long believed that a dynamics of pure shape would one day be found, but in the last two years my thinking has changed somewhat." I have only alluded to this size relativity in my own essay by indicating the relevance of projective geometry to Image reality formation.

      Enough said- an enjoyable easy read, profound ideas and thoughts. I hope you find other readers who appreciate where your conclusions are coming from even if not exactly agreeing with them. Kind regards Georgina

        Dear Georgina,

        Thank you ever so much for your extremely positive comments about my essay. I think that there is only one physical surface. Have you noticed that man is the only animal that covers up his own surface. He seems to invest his tattoos and clothing coverings with special power.

        Warm regards,

        Joe Fisher

        4 days later

        There is no way this essay will win any prize now that Eddie Redmayne, the film actor playing Shephen Hawking in the banal THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING has won the Academy Award for best actor.

        11 days later

        Dear Joe Fischer,

        My impression is that you refer to ontology, the nature of reality is ontic while its description is epistemic. Quantum theory happens to be epistemic and there seems to be no other way, while classical theory is ontic. May be a higher stage of mathematics is able to clarify this discrepancy (categories or so). There is an interesting essay by Laurence Hitterdale that constructively criticizes the mathematical universe hypothesis. Physical theories are recognized true if they are useful in their range of application. I tend to admit that mathematical physics is not enough to talk about the real world, if any. But I like that you strongly insist that this important question of ontology has to be investigated in physics. Do I understand you correctly?

        Michel

          Dear Michel,

          Regrettably, you do not understand a thing I wrote. Reality has nothing to do with abstract ontology. Reality does not have an abstract nature. Good God, you have a real complete skin surface do you not? Every animal, insect, plant, and pot of jam has a complete real surface. No matter in which direction you look and no matter in at what time you look, you will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces. Reality is simple to understand. Count to ten Joe. Keep your temper Joe.

          Flabbergasted at your obtuseness,

          Joe Fisher

          Dear Joe

          Thanks for the essay.

          Is it not true, ours like "real" observers (whose are fundamentally intrinsic quantized and able only to make communications with his/her external universe only through some forms of quantized signals to have "real perceptions" about IT) could never make any to and fro communications with that conceptual "Abstract zero" or "Absolute zero", or infinity, indifferent whether that would be a mathematical or physical? How one such observer could develop a precise real perception about any of those supposed "Abstract" events which are absolutely zero communicating or receiving any signal or message?

          Otherwise its Ok.

          Dipak Kumar Bhunia

          (A tale of two logics)

            Sir, thanks so much for your comment on my essay. This was an effective invitation to read yours. Since we seemingly defend two different approaches, the confrontation could be fruitfull. The importance given to the notion of surface is very interesting and I shall certainly immerse myself with it. I could not empeach myself to put your thinking about the zero in relation with the Heisenberg's principle without being able to go further. Concerning the distinction between the abstract and the real world... it's ok except that since we have nothing else than our real brain to construct abstractions which certainly are real flows of hormons and chimical transmitters... I miss the reason why you insist so much on that point (my thesis: we don't have to care about the abstract distinction between abstraction and reality since the abstractions live in the same real world than ours!). The pragmatism and the need of realism in a scientific approach forces us to make choices (the abstractions) that we confront with the realities. Certainly is it at the end just a circular logic inside which we are testing ourself and contempling our own image... but where is the problem since we have to live and to try to understand where and who we are?

            Best regards.

              Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

              I have no idea what your comment is about, but I do thank you for making it.

              Warm Regards,

              Joe Fisher

              Dear Dr. Periat,

              Thank you for taking the time and the trouble to read my essay and comment about it. If I am correct about only surface having the ability to travel at a constant speed, it means that scientists attempting to build a spaceship that would have a physical surface that could travel "faster" than that of a surface of a garbage can are engaged in an act of utter futility.

              Warm Regards,

              Joe Fisher

              Joe,

              You are talking about things that exist, that are real. Although I am not a philosopher, for me it refers to ontology. It is not abstract. How do you define something that is real? I know that there is objective reality that is postulated to be independent of the observer and a more subjective view where the subject takes part into what is observed. Classical physics is of the former type while QM of the latter.

              What kind of philosophy do you have, is there somebody that understands you?

              Michel

              Dear Joe Fisher,

              I found your comment on my essay but someone removed them before I was able to answer.

              I'm far from any ignorance, so please write it again.

              Best Torsten

              Fisher,

              You words are very thrilling to me! I am excised to hear anyone question Newton or Einstein. He wasn't so much different that the world of physics that he overthrew. His ingenuity made a picture that worked to his great merit, but it is one that should be constantly questioned.

              Just a question. If light is recorded only as the emission of particles, say electrons getting excited and cooling, then what can be said of the light before then?

                Dear William,

                Thank you ever so much for your comment.

                I cannot answer your question because I think it refers to abstract light and abstract electrons and abstract cooling. Real light does not consist of abstract electrons or abstract photons.

                Joe Fisher

                Dear abstract Mr. abstract Fisher,

                Had abstract you abstract been abstract properly abstract trained abstract in abstract the abstract language abstract and abstract art abstract of abstract mathematics abstract and abstract of abstract physics (abstract abstract), and abstract had abstract you abstract any abstract concern abstract for abstract (Abstract!!) Truth abstract, abstract you abstract would abstract have abstract realized abstract that abstract your abstract "theory" abstract is abstract nothing abstract but abstract an abstract ABSTRACT abstract figment abstract of abstract your abstract imagination abstract which has nothing to do with really unique and really real and really reality, yes not twice, but once and real (not abstract!!).

                Abstract Thank abstract you,

                Abstractly yours,

                J Pecheur