A new thread to discuss an issue suggested by Alex Rhatushnyak (thank you).

Alex's summary follows:

At many complexity levels there seems to be two fundamental classes of

information systems:

1. Elementary particles are first of all either bosons or fermions.

Bosons are generally force carrier particles, whereas fermions

are usually associated with matter.

2. Atomic nucleus and electron cloud.

3. Life molecules including RNA and DNA, versus all other, lifeless molecules.

Living creatures are able to be proactive towards their environment, whereas

lifeless matter is adaptive (reactive) to environment rather than proactive.

4. Starting from the rather simple living creatures, most organisms are either

proactive (animals) or adaptive (plants) to resources of the environment.

5. More advanced living creatures are either proactive (males) or

adaptive (females) with respect to other individuals of their species.

6. Placebo effect suggests that there is a proactive and an adaptive agent in psyche.

7. It's hard to look above and beyond, but it seems likely that individuals

in advanced societies are either mostly creators or mostly consumers

of informational products (decisions, innovations, virtual realities...)

Thus again, mostly either proactive or adaptive, now towards their society.

8. It also seems likely that most societies position themselves first of all as

either proactive or adaptive towards their space-time neighbors.

Supposedly this is because information systems evolve better when there are features

enabling bimodal distributions, and seemingly proactive/adaptive is one of such

features.

If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis[1] is true, that is, the hypothesis that

our external physical reality is isomorphic to a huge mathematical structure (HMS),

then it seems possible that the gradual increase of total complexity of HMS is

what we subjectively perceive as time, and increase of complexity in a self-aware

core (perhaps the proactive agent of psyche) could be essential for what we

subjectively perceive as qualia and consciousness.

Note this is descriptive (Kolmogorov) complexity, not computational complexity.

Descriptive complexity of a 10^122 bit long sequence[5] is below 1000 bits

if the sequence is fully describable with a short pattern and a repeat count.

We can assume that HMS always contains an infinite amount of "random" data, which

gradually become "non-random". For a finite, binary, one-dimensional illustration

consider a set of 2^Z files such that the first N bits are the same in all files

of the set, while data in the last Z bits are different in each file of the set.

Then at the next (for this reference frame) moment t+tp, where tp is Planck time,

the set contains 2^(Z-x) files such that N+x bits are the same, and Z-x bits are

all different. Or M groups of files (if we assume that M variants of future

may be equally real) such that N+x bits are same within each group.

Continue to read the full post here

"If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis[1] is true, that is, the hypothesis that our external physical reality is isomorphic to a huge mathematical structure (HMS)..." That hypothesis is self-evidently false, since a(b+c) is not physically isomorphic with its mathematical identity ab+ac. In other words, a single physical entity cannot simultaneously be both a two-multiplier structure and a one-multiplier structure. They are physically very different structures, in spite of the fact that they are mathematical identities. Hence, mathematical identities are highly unlikely to be isomorphic with physical identities, because there is seldom a unique physical structure corresponding to any mathematical identity. Another way to think about this, is that there are usually multiple different algorithms, each with its own highly distinctive physical structure, corresponding to the solution to any given mathematical equation. Thus an equation per se cannot determine the structure that nature physically employs to manifest the equation in the physical laws. The mathematics may specify the laws, but that is not sufficient to specify a unique physical reality for implementing those laws.

Rob McEachern

    I don't think this proactive/reactive dichotomy is especially accurate or useful. And several of the points here are just wrong. Number 5 especially... I mean, maybe I'm just being reactive, but anyone who thinks females are generally not proactive... hasn't known the females I have. And even the basic one, 3, about "lifeless matter" -- counter examples abound. Fire, for instance. And the idea that time is the perception of increase of complexity... yah, nope. Eventually, as time progresses, the stars will burn out, black holes will consume all and then evaporate, and the universe will become empty and cold -- a complete lack of complexity.

      Hello Mr McEachern,

      It is well explained.I agree.The complexity returns to simplicity after all.This complexity has its limits like many things in fact.The maths can explain physics if the Tools are well utilised.That said I consider an universe Under laws of physics.The gravitation is the secret of main informations and main codes of evolution.Can we compute our universe? yes,with limits!Isomorphism of main codes seems not possible simply because codes and informations are gravitational.The physicaal reality is a domain with its intrinsic laws,deterministic and rational.The complexity also is deterministic.The subjectivity and the objectivity are two things totaly different.Maths can be subkjective, not physics.Thanks for sharing,best regards.

      Hi Alex and All,

      What is the issue you wish to discuss Alex? Is it whether there are bimodal information systems throughout nature or something else?

      It seems to me that a 'nice' idea has been conceived and then there has been an effort to fit nature to it, and it doesn't work convincingly. I would argue that both plant and animal kingdoms are adaptive and also proactive. Its just less obvious for plants as their behaviour is carried out over longer periods of time. Consider a time lapse film of a bean tendril seeking out supports. Male and female behaviour differences can have a cultural aspect. Cultural expectations forming the externally observed character not merely innate biology. It is also presenting a stereotype, whereas in real life there is a lot of individual variation in part due to upbringing.

      Alex has written "Supposedly this is because information systems evolve better when there are features enabling bimodal distributions, and seemingly proactive/adaptive is one of such features." I don't know Who supposes this and on the basis of what objective evidence? Do information systems evolve better that way? Is "Seemingly" rather than "Supposedly" meant at the start of that paragraph, following on from the (less than convincing) examples above?

      This following sentence puzzles me "We can assume that HMS always contains an infinite amount of "random" data, which gradually become "non-random". I'm not sure how the random information can remain infinite if increasing amounts of it are becoming non random over time. Are you suggesting information input to the universe that replaces the now non random information? Yet even so, how can it be called infinite if there could be more of it without some of it having become ordered? Maybe you meant 'near infinite' and I'm being pedantic.

      Alex is the above criticism at all helpful to you?

      Hyenas are a good counter example, in which the females are the dominant members of the society. Even a female cub outranks a male, (from BBC Earth article). Certainly the males must react to the proactive reproaches of the females, displaying their submission,in order to avoid dangerous aggression.

      Alex,

      I did take a look at the full article. There seems to be a great many ideas up for discussion there and I think its too much to deal with all at once. It might be better to take just the start of the article and dissect that, to find out whether the statements are backed up by objective evidence rather than speculation or assumption. As well you might consider whether the statements follow on from each other. I.e. are you building a case, a structured argument, here or just throwing out a lot of unconnected ideas? I've said that because I can't see the connection between them, such as the starting list and the mathematical universe idea, even though you may have it in mind.

      5 days later

      The missing continuation:

      M <= 2^x, x is negligible compared to N, N is negligible compared to Z: x << N << Z.

      Descriptive complexity of HMS is the complexity of only the "non-random" part of it,

      because the "random" part is kind of "outside" and invisible.

      There is no time in the suggested picture in the sense that universe contains

      nothing except mathematical structures. However, there is time in the sense that

      structures of lower complexity "precede" structures of higher complexity, and

      the latter somehow arise from the former.

      The age of our universe (currently estimated as 13.8 billion years) and the total

      complexity of our universe are the two measures of our distance from "the origin":

      the area where HMS is so simple that the description could be packed into a few

      hundred bits (perhaps representing something like fundamental physical laws and

      constants, e.g. space dimensionality equals three, gravitational constant G equals...)

      Supposedly age of our universe is not as good measure as the total complexity,

      because although we discover rather than invent the relatively simple mathematical

      structures, it seems possible that we actually invent rather than discover almost

      all of laws and constants of our external physical reality.

      For example, an HMS from a set of HMS's observationally indistinguishable from our

      "year 1800" (according to our point of view in 1800) could possibly evolve into an

      HMS corresponding to our "year 2016" but such that the age of the universe is 13.5

      billion years according to the best estimate of cosmologists inhabiting it.

      And similarly Mp/Me = 1835, instead of 1836, where Mp is mass of proton, and Me

      is mass of electron (Mp/Me = 1836 in our universe).

      A few prominent contemporary physicists share quite similar ideas, for example

      Neil Turok, director of Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics:

      "It is a striking fact that the geometric mean of the Hubble and Planck lengths is

      the size of a living cell: the scale on which we live, where nature is at her most

      complex.

      What is exciting about this picture is that it requires a new kind of theory, one

      which is simple at both the smallest and largest scales, and very early and very

      late cosmological times so that it is capable of explaining these properties of

      our world. In fact, there are more detailed hints from both theory and data that,

      at these extremes, the laws of physics should become independent of scale. Such

      a theory won't be concerned with kilograms, meters or seconds, only with information

      and its relations. It will be a unified theory, not only of all the forces and

      particles but of the universe as a whole." [6]

      Another example is from Lee Smolin:

      "But how are we to describe physics, if it is not in terms of things moving in a

      fixed spacetime? Einstein struggled with this, and my only answer is the one he

      came to near the end of his life: fundamental physics must be discrete, and its

      description must be in terms of algebra and combinatorics." [7]

      "It is beginning to seem as if nature is just unnaturally fine tuned. In my opinion

      we should now be seeking explanations for why this might be. Perhaps the laws of

      nature are not static, but have evolved through some dynamical mechanism to have

      the unlikely forms they are observed to have." [8]

      The question of whether space-time can be based on logic and computation has been

      discussed, e.g. by Ämin Baumeler and Stefan Wolf [9].

      Are there testable predictions from the hypothesis that we invent physical laws?

      Fine-tuning can give a clue.

      Let's address an easier question: is there anything that looks like an evidence

      supporting the hypotheses "increase of total complexity of HMS is ... time"

      and "increase of complexity in a self-aware core ... consciousness" ?

      Yes, [2] and [3] respectively.

      With respect to [2] the falsifiable prediction is that nuclear decay rate will be

      significantly lower on the edges of Solar system, and with respect to [3] and [4]

      the falsifiable prediction is that hit rates will increase with the number of

      starers, supposedly because the subjective increase of complexity runs differently

      with starers than without them.

      [1] Max Tegmark (2014), Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, ISBN 978-0-307-59980-3

      and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

      [2] Jenkins, Fischbach et al., Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance, http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

      [3] http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/917468-ability-to-sense-when-someones-staring-at-you-is-common-studies-show/

      [4] Richard Wiseman & Marilyn Schlitz, Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring, http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/staring1.pdf

      [5] Matt Mahoney, Data Compression Explained, http://mattmahoney.net/dc/dce.html#Section_Conclusion

      [6] Neil Turok, Answer to the 2016 question on Edge.org, https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26742

      [7] Lee Smolin, Answer to the 2005 question on Edge.org, https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11130

      [8] Lee Smolin, Answer to the 2016 question on Edge.org, https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26610

      [9] Ämin Baumeler, Stefan Wolf, Causality - Complexity - Consistency: Can Space-Time Be Based on Logic and Computation? http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06987

      Thank you for the counter examples and other helpful comments!

      We are looking and grand averages across all known phenomena, species, societies, etc. So it's not the case that a single counter example shows that the statement is false.

      I am very interested in references to prior art:

      anything with (MUH or CUH) and (Complexity levels or Descriptive complexity).

      Not really interested in discussing popular beliefs like this one:

      Eventually, as time progresses, the stars will burn out, black holes will consume all and then evaporate, and the universe will become empty and cold

      "That hypothesis is self-evidently false"

      How would you rephrase the sentence such that it doesn't look totally false to you? "Computational" instead of "mathematical"?

      "Observationally indistinguishable" instead of "isomorphic" ?

        Hi Alex,

        I accept that hyenas are not typical of all animals in the animal kingdom. How have you found / how are you going to find a grand average of all species and societies to substantiate the proactive reactive differentiation along gender divide? There is a huge diversity of behaviour within those species that do have separate sexes. Would you perhaps take one representative species of each family of animals within the kingdom to stand for all species and say whether the segregation your hypothesis puts forward is matched. With many millions of species you cannot do that for all of them, can You?. So even if found to match, its a grand approximation at best.

        10 months later

        Darwinian Universal

        The nature of the interaction between space and matter, what causes gravitational acceleration? is a question forefront in people's minds. But also the nature of the universal orders we observe, atomic and cosmological structures being very non-random and articulated. I will speak briefly to these now, but please bear in mind that I can corner these considerations with diverse justifications, if you should seek to test?.

        In simplest terms. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter? The one we are going to consider now is arguably the simplest conceptual possibility. That Tuv (matter) is embedded in, and in the business of "metabolizing" a field of Guv (space). Guv and Tuv share equality, so it would make sense in terms of an energy transfer and conversion flowing from space to matter. So A. where does this Guv energy potential originate from? and B. what is it converted into that explains atomic process? A. Space possesses a cosmological expansive property which takes its measure as Auv cosmological redshift, which enables us to speculate that space that is metabolized by matter is a renewable resource. B. Conventional theory does not attribute a cause for the work actions of the fundamental forces, so we speculate that the energy potential derived from Auv space is converted to the mechanical actions of Gluons and Photons, and both taking their measure as magnitudes of velocity C.

        Summarizing

        Cosmological Auv represents the emergence rate of a universal energy field, which is then metabolized by matter on a local basis represented by the equation Guv = Tuv, enabling the atomic mechanical actions attributed to Gluons and Photons. So this is a really simple conceptualization, and an effective test would be to ask, do the following values possess equality, Auv = Guv = Tuv? Yes they do.

        Thats so far pretty brief and simple. I've put forward a hypothesis which relies on the extraordinary equality of various universal measures as evidence. But also provides an appealing chain of cause and effect that takes us beyond the notion of photons and Gluons being fundamental force. The theory of fundamental force being that of "force without a prior cause". The idea that Gluons and Photons are energy conserved systems, which somehow perform "work" functions as by-product, is aesthetically displeasing. It ascribes to theory of causeless work, and the actions of electron bonds being good example. Electron bonds manifest a property we can appreciate at the human scale of existence, evident as the glue that binds objects together. We can directly sense these bonds as we wrap our hands around objects and apply force against them, which hold resistant against our efforts. How can their persistent resistance to your forceful actions, be described in terms other than that of "work action"? We need to move past the notion of "causeless work actions".

        In addition to this, I will briefly mention a prospective explanation for atomic and cosmological structure, order, complexity, fine tuning. The code for which is written in photon and Gluon mechanics, a product of a long standing Co-evolution between two universal elements, Auv and Tuv. Auv being a regenerative elemental field of space, and the elemental aspect of Tuv being the Photons and Gluons that form the material universe.

        This hypothesis paints Auv as a regenerative field, and it can be speculated that anything that is continually regenerative, is capable of compounding changes, evolving, advancing its physical state. Tuv (matter) also demonstrates a capacity suggestive of re-generation, in the form of quark separations that generate identical copies of themselves. Not conceptually dissimilar to biological cellular divisions, which we understand leads to compounded changes we identify as Darwinian process. The standard theory of matter synthesis holds that photons created by a big bang event will spontaneously condense and precipitate to form atoms. This prescribes a whole lot of givens without adequate explanation. Atoms are wonderfully complex articulated machines, their properties evidenced by the universe they collectively build, including the form that makes you. The "given" that you must currently except for lack of an alternative explanation, is that "this can occur purely on basis of chance". However that is no longer the case as of the realizations presented here within, that allows for compounded changes to occur, leading to ever increased levels of complexity and fine tuning, an explanation for the world around us.

        This hypothesis brings to mind a scenario whereby the universe first emerges as a simplest possible configuration field quanta, and through continual regeneration compounded changes, evolved through ever shifting circumstances that eventuated as the universe we observe. A scenario like this might not easily come to mind, however I have begun to uncover a possible interpretation which can be judged for merit. And there is a persuasive case that can be made that the structure of the universe we observe around us, is evolved optimally for a purposeful interaction between space and matter, in terms of matter being spread out across space, optimized for atmospheric interaction.

        I opened this post with a question towards the nature of the interaction between space and matter. And I wouldn't really be doing the subject justice without prescribing cause, the motivation for gravitational acceleration. The main aspect of the puzzle of gravity, that holds us all spellbound. The before mentioned prescribes a scenario whereby natures forces are mediated via Photons and Gluons, which are enabled via a process of metabolism of the Auv elemental field of space. This being the case, it informs us where the motivation for universal force originates, and how it is mediated and subsequently expressed. The conventional take is that the strong nuclear force and gravity are two independent forces or phenomenon. But that ignores the rather obvious association between the two, that Gluons are the strong nuclear force from which mass is an emergent property, and it is the mass that responds to gravitational fields. So it is basic deduction that the (strong nuclear force) (Gluons) and (Mass) are all representative of one and the same property of matter. It is Gluonic Mass that both responds to gravitational fields and also possesses the capacity to mediate force, which is expressed as gravitational acceleration. In simplest terms, Gluons mediate the force that causes gravitational acceleration. If you want to qualify this possibility, then study the similarities that are known to exist between Gluons and Photons, and ask the question (if Photons can express motion, then could it be that Gluons can also express motion via the same general mechanism as Photons?

        These associations are made trivial within the wider context of the theory I refer to as Darwinian Universal, which theorizes that the differences between Photons and Gluons are mainly that of structural complexity, from which Gluons manifest the additional emergent properties of matter, being mass, nuclear and molecular bonds, heat process etc. Gluons that form matter are evolved Photons. My contest essay, which I should have titled Darwinian Universal, elaborates beyond what I have mentioned here.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890

        I would like to engage this subject with the FQXi community please? I propose that my essay discussion page would be the right place to hold such a discussion, so I invite you to join me there please? Nobody would stumble across it otherwise, so I'll sprinkle a couple of these invitations around the forum. Please keep in mind that I will only be notified of your reply, if you post at my essay page.

        Thank you kindly for your considerations

        Steve

        Darwinian Universal

        I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received, and for the community score that tallied. However I havent engaged with the community in discussions about it yet, either in a sense that might test it or allow me to elaborate further. I have added a post to my essay thread titled Darwinian Universal, which presents an explanation for why the concept of fundamental forces is flawed, in terms of being considered an energy conserving system which undertakes perpetual work effort. Electron bond persistency in binding matter for example. Having framed it in terms of what conventional approach is conceptually missing, I then present a solution in terms of my concept. That the question of what the nature of the interaction is that exists between space and matter that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity, is the same question as "what is the prior cause for the fundamental forces that enables their work effort?. I propose that photon and gluon activity is the product of the interaction with space, and this is why the terms of Guv and Tuv share equality. Its an energy transfer and conversion. So matter being in the business of consuming an elemental field of space that enables photon activity, dictating the rate of causality which we interpret as time. This is how it corresponds to the theory of spacetime.

        This raises the question, if space is a resource matter is dependent on to maintain activity, then how can the resource remain persistent over time. Why is it not finite and subject to depletion? Auv cosmological emergence of space to the rescue. I cannot present the physics that would answer the how of Auv's continual emergence, but I can point to the observation and values attributed to its emergence, and the equality they share with universal values of Guv and Tuv. That their equality is highly suggestive they share a relationship that is causal. That Auv is a renewable resource which enables photon activity, and that Auv and Tuv are both elements of a universal system that allows for compounded changes and evolved purposeful structure and complexities to emerge. That all the activities on both atomic and cosmological scales, are evolved and optimized for their reason for existence, which is for efficiency of interaction between the Auv elemental field of space, and Tuv matter.

        This theory prescribes cause, purpose and meanings to aspects of the world where there has been nothing of the sort presented before. I would like the opportunity to demonstrate to people that this concept is deserving of discussion. Are you willing to join me please and help me kick it off? I will be holding the discussion on my essay page thread.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890

        Thank you for your consideration

        Kind regards

        Steven Andresen

          Hello

          I liked the link with this space. I consider that space does not exist but only matter and energy exist. The space in logic is in fact particles of gravitation I beleive and we have a serie of spherical volumes implying that this space disappears.The aether seems gravitational from the central cosmological singularity.

          The matter not baryonic intereacts but how ?

          Thannks for sharing your works

          Best Regards

          8 days later

          Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of nature.

          Another force considered as fundamental is the strong nuclear force, for which the Gluon is the mediator, which importantly is the generator of "mass", which is the property of matter which responds to gravitational fields. Or I could have said it like this "The strong nuclear force makes the "MASS" which motivates the gravitational acceleration".

          Why do people believe gravity is a forth fundamental force independent of the other three, when clearly the strong nuclear force generates the property of matter "mass" that responds to gravitational fields? Why dont they acknowledge that Gluons mediate the force that drives gravitational acceleration? Because they are not trained as detectives to follow evidentary clues.

          But your question is about connecting magnetism to gravity, and it appears I have connected Gluon activity to gravity instead. What you have to realize is that Gluons and electromagnetism (EM) are very very similar entities as one another. So to relate gravitational interaction with EM, I show you that Gluons and EM are closely related.

          How are Gluons and EM related? They are related in every way! Electromagnetism is light (photons), and a useful value we can attribute to light is its velocity C. Mass is a measure of Gluon activity, and mass is a very tidy sum multiple of the speed of light kg x C x C. Or famously E=MC2. So it can be said that Gluon activity and Photon activity are correlated via proportionate magnitude of one another. Gluons and Photons also perform very similar roles as one another, in much the same way as one another. Gluons create the bonds which hold the nucleolus together, and photons create the bonds that hold electron bonds together. The theory of charge applies to both the Gluon and the Photon in the mediation of their bond interactions. You can visualize them as operating in very much the same way as one another. I could go on all day long about the similarities between Gluons and Photons, but that should be enough to make my point of their relation.

          So anyway, the key point to take home is that Gluons operate very much the same way as light (EM) does. Light can propel itself through the voids of space, so why couldn't Gluons be responsible for a similar capability of generating motion? Gluons generate mass, and mass motivates gravitational acceleration, so this is indeed how it can be interpreted.

          Magnetism and gravity are related, because an entity which is very closely related to magnetism, that is to say "Gluons" are the driving force for gravitational acceleration. Simple! Why dont people realize this? Because they are to confused by the idea that somehow the concept of "spacetime" will inform them how, why objects are set to motion. How can time motivate motion? is a question which leads nowhere!

          I appreciate what you are saying, and judge you fairly for saying it. You have to appreciate that is only a page of explanation, and so is stated in simple terms. I can provide further justifications. But it is an interesting idea isnt it, that Gluons are much the same as light, and light has the capacity for motion. That Gluons might be the force provider that motivates gravitational accelerations?

          I could answer toward your points directly, or I could provide a more interesting explanation from which you could infer the answers you need? Which I will do, but we can always come back to individual points whenever you like.

          If you are willing, I would like to discuss the question of the origin of force? Again lets focus on Gluons and photons, which is to say, strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force, whos actions are ascribed to the theory of "Fundamental Forces". Within this context, the word fundamental might be interpreted as a theoretical "first cause". Or force with no prior cause.

          There are some basic problems with the theory of "force with no prior cause". It raises the same general criticisms we might have for the notion of perpetual energy machines. But are these same general criticisms rightly directed towards the function of atomic forces? Fundamental forces do a lot of different things, but we want to identify an action which is clearly in the business of undertaking "work action" and therefore cannot be interpreted as energy conserving. So let us focus on EM electromagnetic electron bonds which glues matter together. I select electron bonds because they manifest a property of matter which we can appreciate at the macro scale of human existence, and which we can wrap our own hands around an object, and directly sense the "work effort" these electromagnetic forces are responsible for mediating.

          The question is, how can perpetual work effort exist without prior cause? If we try to excuse this situation, as fundamental forces being energy conserved systems, then how do you extract work from such a system without affecting its internal checks and balances?

          I know it seams as though I'm leading us toward an intangible circumstance, for which the activities of matter cannot be provided a rational explanation. But I'm not. I'm leading us down a well considered path, which I hope gives reason enough to entertain the novel solution I will provide. It is a solution which prescribes a prior cause for atomic forces, while solving a number of further problems confronting scientific understanding.

          Let us consider the possibility that the following two questions have the same answer. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter, that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity? and what is the prior cause of atomic forces?

          Let us envision, space containing a physical element which matter is in the business of consuming, to enable matters forceful activities. Guv = Tuv is the conventional interpretation of the interaction between space and matter. If it is indeed an energy transfer and conversion to atomic force, then the equality demonstrated of each of these terms bodes well. However, a conceptual challenge to this notion, would be as follows. If space contains an elemental field that is consumed by matter, then wouldn't it be a finite resource that would eventually be depleted? And on the face of it, you might think that presents an end to this conjecture. But it doesnt.

          Space isn't only described in terms of Guv. Space also has a property which is described as cosmological expansion, and termed as Auv. For the benefit of this conjecture, I'll ask you to consider the possibility that Auv is a measurement that corresponds to a regenerative process undertaken by an elemental field inhabiting space, which continually replenishes the potential, that in turn drives atomic forces. For this hypothesis to have any prospect, there would have to be a link between the value of Auv (cosmological expansion) and Tuv (atomic forces) that demonstrate an equality. And indeed, such a measure has been known about for many years. Those interested please quiz me?

          Auv = Guv = Tuv.

          This line of conjecture provides something further. Entities which continually regenerate have the prospect of compounding changes over time and evolving. Generationally compounded change, conceivably can lead simple systems toward heightened levels of order and complexity. The character of structures that evolve in such a system, as exampled by life, can be used to infer the circumstances of their evolution, revealing motives and purpose, which in turn convey reasons and meanings. Does this conjecture lead to an interpretation of universal emergence that explains for its very particular style of order, complexity, fine tuning? It does, and I am part way through the process of uncovering an interpretation of it.

          It goes something like this. Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence which leads to heightened levels of complexity. Whether that is Algae which evolves the ability for photosynthesis, which exploits the freely available natural energy potential of the sun, which then becomes the basis of a food chain that leads to diverse organisms of increasingly complex character. Algae eaten by krill, eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, dolphins and whales. Could this be how all complexities evolve in the world, including atomic and cosmological structure?

          Could Auv cosmological emergence be the result of a natural energy potential, ( as yet unidentified physical process), which has lead to a Darwinian cascade that provides circumstance, reason and purpose for the structures, complexity, fine tuning, we observe in the world around us? I am building the case so that people might be able to judge merit. Writing to you now provides me an opportunity for practice.

          Hi Steve

          Sorry for the late reply. I havent been back to this page since posting that message.

          Answer to your question, how space interacts with matter. It is simple a metabolism, whereby the elemental field of space which corresponds to Auv, provides the energy potential the fundamental forces require for their operation. Its an energy transfer and conversion to atomic force.

          Best regards

          Steve

          Write a Reply...