The smell of the Moon by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

The system logs you out very quickly! Above post was from me, Lorraine Ford

Jeffrey,

"The intersection between experiential Physics and Mathematics generates these new rules." Sort of a Ben Franklin "common sense." I feel like your essay is an exercise in heightened perception based on reason and common sense.

I thought my "Connections of Math, Physics and the Human Brain" was easy to follow but your is simple and elegant.

Jim

Jeffrey,

"How we count things is the foundation of mathematics" a) before starting to count, you have to accept that each element counted does exist. Without realizing it, you have already accepted that the element passes the logical test of non-contradiction, i.e. it cannot exist and not exist at the same time. So, logic comes before counting. B) Does the universe care how WE count. How about how the universe counts? How does a planet add or acquire mass? By counting? Nope! It gains mass by acquiring matter from afar and by getting it closer to its center of mass. Addition, for the universe is about getting things together, closer. It is much like children learn in school by getting beads together in a pile. It is in fact a geometric operation. When they get older, they learn how to add the money in their pocket with that in their bank account ... which is nothing real. The universe adds substance, not ideas or concepts. Logic without substance can't produce a universe that lasted 13 billion years before we ever showed up ... Nice essay. With logic, look for the substance... and loose some baggage;

Because of the speed limit of light, no two points of the Moon are at the same moment. That is the time the universe requires to connect those two the points. Consequently, the "Moon" is in fact just an aggregate of matter across time, not even an object! It becomes an object "Moon" only when I see it or conceive it as being there all at once, in a moment of perception. Lots of baggage to leave behind before understanding the underlying reality..

Good luck,

Marcel,

Dear Dr. Schmitz,

I have no wish to be disrespectful to you or to your essay, but I think that your statement that "Water", "children and the "Moon" are not universal is incorrect for the following real reason:

Do let me know what you think about this: This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's 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 objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for not reporting to Fqxi.org that my comment was inappropriate and by doing so have the Administrator classify it as Obnoxious Spam and remove it.

Joe Fisher

Dear Jeff,

You begin by noting just what a strange and limited language is mathematics, with examples 'pass the salt' and 'watch out', etc. Your examples of Roman versus Arabic numerals somewhat parallels Donald Palmer's essay, where he points out that modern science and technology would not be feasible (possible?) without the decimal number system. Typically the actual numeric system in use is glossed over.

I fully agree that counting (the physical implementation of Peano Axioms) leads to mathematics, producing the natural numbers and, per Kronecker, allowing man to build 'all the rest' of math. In my essay I elaborate on 'counters as key'. In one comment you ask "could counting exist without logic?" You seem to think yes, but in my essay I tend to think no. I view 'logic' not as mathematical argument, but as the basic fact of nature that allows AND and NOT gates to exist at every scale as fundamental physical structure, whether implemented at the level of protein, neuron, or silicon.

What I really enjoyed was your speculation about "language" in terms of other species or senses, from echolocation to dog's sense of smell. You make a fascinating point, re dogs use of 'smell' to communicate 'Moon', that "the Moon does not have a smell, but Democrat and Republican states are not actually red and blue."

Also like your statement "science cannot find truth, but can find understanding, and failure is an important tool in understanding."

I invite you to read my essay and welcome your comments.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

A maestro in depicting the ideas on to the paper.

Great work!

-Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Hi Jeff--

I enjoyed reading your essay. You must have the best title of any essay in the contest. It is humorous and yet perfectly coveys the point of your message. Your distinction between mathematical and physical proof is exactly correct, in my opinion. As for non-logical communications, my guess is that's what Madhyamaka Buddhists (and others) think that they are doing when they meditate.

All-in-all, congratulations!

Best regards,

Bill.

actually I had commented naturally, but the compliment to you in your view actually happened it to be a prank!

Which I think a "real" april fool to you!

- Best Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Michael,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Jeff,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I've read to assure I've rated them. Some of us in retirement have the luxury of time. I find that I rated yours on 3/13, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

Jeff,

Thank you for your kind words, but especially for seriously reading my essay.

Jim

Jeff

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay. Reading yours I can see you're a perceptive 'out of the bigger box' thinker. I particularly liked;

'Mathematics 聽requires 聽your 聽trust 聽to 聽function. 聽It 聽is 聽up 聽to 聽you 聽to 聽decide 聽if 聽you 聽are 聽being 聽conned.'

'Science 聽cannot 聽find 聽truth, 聽but 聽can 聽find 聽understanding 聽and 聽failure 聽is 聽an 聽important 聽tool 聽in 聽understanding.' 聽

'It 聽is 聽hard 聽to 聽image 聽physics 聽without 聽mathematics,聽but 聽examples are all 聽around 聽us'

'If we wish to understand what the Moon is like we want to see pictures'

I find 3D pictures to be of massive importance, containing and rationalising great complexity and also highly memorable, adding motion is a multiplier. My video in an exercise in compresses 10 volumes of explanations and calculations into 9 minutes (though should be 30!) And yes; it's important new physics!

I also liked you reminder that Arabic numerals are not the only way of describing cardinalisation. I quite like the Mayan system, of simple symbols (dashes etc) where relative 'position' dictates function. When people get too pedantic about maths as the 'only' language of physics I sometimes compare the manipulations of ancient Arabic symbols we use to Tarot cards. If poorly used they can have equal meaning as descriptors of m natures mechanisms!

Anyway very well done. Shame it seems it won't be in the finalists even after my score.

Peter