SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY by Joe Fisher

Dear Stephen,

Thank you ever so much for your sagacious comment

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Joe Fisher,

I got some observations...

1. In introduction line 1.... Correction ...Trees,corals etc., don't have eyes

2. In introduction Line 6:... How can you say empty space never existed anywhere?

3. In introduction Line 9:.... There are different un-connected surfaces, but not single surface. Single surface may be inside of the eye there is only retina ....

4. 3rd Para Middle sentence... It is not single surface / Not infinite surface

5. 4th Para line2... You are attributing every unknown to God.... Science should develop...

6. Page 3 line 5...Is there any ZERO sized initial Bigbang mass?? I dont think EVEN expanding universe models predicted such ZERO sized INFINITE Density mass was present at the time of Bigbang.

7. Page 4 line 1 to 3... What is real infinite dimension...?

8. Page 4 line 12... Why only two surfaces will travel ... in Galileo experiment... there are many surfaces

9. Page 7 line 11.... Why all infinite surfaces travel with same speed... (Based on Newton's laws the whole engineering and technology are working today...)

10. In Abstract: Simple Mathematical laws will explain... Eg Use dynamic Universe Model

Nice essay sir,

Probably I did not understand what is meant by surface....

Best wishes to you too

Your comment to me on my page:

Dear Mr. Butler,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary "laws of the Universe."

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

My return comment to you:

Dear Joe,

I do not mind comments about my work because there have been times that I have received good useful information that way. At the very least it tells me about the level of understanding of the one making the comments. This helps me to respond to the comments in a way that is most likely to be understandable to the commenter. Whether the response is actually of value to the commenter, of course, depends on whether he is only interested in giving me his current beliefs or actually desires to know the truth if his beliefs are in error, but that is for him to decide. I just give the information. If I am in error, I desire to change my beliefs to conform to reality and if our beliefs are the same, we can work together to gain more knowledge.

You say "Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it." Your implication seems to be that an amoeba is a very simple creature and it is in comparison to the structure of a man, but it is really a very complicated structure that man has not yet perfectly come to completely understand. It contains well over 100 protein machines that function in various ways to allow it to take needed resources into it, to process those resources to produce its needed energy and materials that it uses to repair damaged parts, and even build all the new parts needed to make a complete copy of itself when it divides to form a new amoeba. It also must be able to 1. Get rid of waste materials, 2. Move itself to find new resources, 3. Detect and take those resources into itself, protect itself from external attack, etc. When it reproduces itself, it first reads the required instructions recorded into its DNA. An amoeba has about 300 billion to over 600 billion DNA base pairs depending on the type of amoeba you are talking about. It must then copy the instructions to make all of the new protein machines for the new amoeba to be generated and transfer those instructions to the machines that build those protein machines following the supplied instructions. Those machines assemble the new protein machines by gathering and assembling amino acids together in the proper order one at a time out of about 20 left handed amino acids that are used by living creatures to build their protein machines. There are also right handed amino acids and a total of about 60 other amino acids that are not use in living creatures. If any of these were used to assemble a protein it would be ruined. Each machine must be assembled with the proper amino acid in each of its positions in order for it to function properly in the amoeba. This is effectively a very complex assembly line production plant on a microscopic scale. Man cannot yet build such a system on that size scale. Of course, all of those base pairs of DNA must also be copied and inserted into the new amoeba. There are no living creatures that just gather together a bunch of assorted amino acids and wait for them to self-assemble. They would die before even one protein would be made that way. They all have special machines that build proteins. That is why it is impractical to believe that the first living creature came about by some type of self-assembly. With 80 amino acids each of which comes in both left handed and right handed varieties for a total of 160 possibilities, only 20 of those possibilities (1/8) can be used in valid proteins used in living creatures. Since each position in the protein requires the exact correct amino acid of those 160 possibilities, constructing a protein machine that required 100 amino acid positions to be filled would be like picking the right 100 digit number in a 160 base math numbering system by chance. If you were really very lucky and you picked the right number the first time you would still have to do it again about 100 to 200 more times to get the number of protein machines needed for the first living creature. This doesn't even begin to cover the more difficult and even less probable self-assembly of the DNA or even RNA that would actually contain the valid code to produce the first creature. All of these parts would have to be produced close enough together to somehow self-assemble into the living creature quickly enough to avoid the natural destruction of them by entropy processes. To get some idea of how low the probability would be to just produce the first protein machine by self-assembly, lets simplify the problem and in the process make it easier than it would be in reality to produce the needed protein machines for the first living creature by self-assembly. We will start by using a system with only 10 possible amino acids instead of the 160 that are really present in the world. This will allow us to just use the decimal system without having to convert from the base 160 system to decimal. Of course, you will need to keep in the back of your mind that in reality the probability of producing the needed protein machines would be much lower than it is in the example that we are using. To make it still easier we will assume that the living creature will need a total 200 protein machines with 2 each of 100 differently coded machines. This means that after you have assembled the number of protein machines that would build all of the possible different protein machines once, you would very likely have produced the first 100 needed protein machines by chance and only need to do it all one more time to produce the other 100 machines. Let's also assume that in each place in the universe where protein self-assembly takes place, 1 trillion protein machines are produced in each second of time. Since each protein machine can have any one of ten amino acids in each of its 100 positions the total number of possible combinations is 1 x 10^100 combinations. Man's current estimate is that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. If we figure that it would take about .8 billion years for it to cool enough to generate stars with planets around them that are cool enough to allow protein self-assembly to get going and to produce the first valid usable protein machine, there would still be 13 billion years left to produce the other 199 machines necessary to build the first living creature. Since there could be many places in the universe that could all be producing 1 trillion machines per second, it would likely not take long to produce the first one. After that things change, however. Even though it might be that all of the machines could be produced in a relatively short time with one in one galaxy and another in a second galaxy, etc. they could not come together to form the living creature because of the great distances between them. This would mean that the other 199 protein machines would have to be made by self-assembly on the same planet and even in the same local area on that planet that the first one had formed in order for the 200 machines to be close enough together to somehow assemble themselves along with the DNA, RNA, and any other needed parts to form a living creature. 13 billion years would equal about 4.1 x10^17 seconds. Figuring 1 trillion protein machines produced each second, a total of about 4.1 x 10^29 protein machines would be produced in 13 billion years, which is way short of the 1 x 10^100 machines that would need to be produced to make the first 101 valid protein machines that are needed to produce the living creature by chance self-assembly. You would still likely have to go through about as much time again to produce the other 99 machines. Another consideration would be that if one valid machine was produced and the next one was not produced for several million years, the first one would surely be destroyed by some entropy interaction over that long a time, let alone the many billions of years that it would take to produce all 200 of them. If they all were somehow produced and survived, you would have 200 proton machines mixed up in a mountain of invalid proton machines and they would somehow have to by chance be separated from that mountain and joined together with all the other parts and somehow become a living creature. Remember that I limited the amino acids to only 10 instead of the actual 160 possible amino acids that could be positioned in each of those 100 positions in each of the protein machines. This means that it would even take tremendously longer than I showed in my example to produce all 200 valid protein machines for the production of the living creature.

There are always those who will completely ignore reality to believe what they want to believe, but I can't do that because I desire to know the truth of how things really work. Given the complexity of the structure of living creatures, the math just does not support the concept of self-assembly of living creatures by chance occurrences.

Reality starts out simple, but as those simple motion machines are joined together hierarchically to produce more and more complex structures, things become progressively less simple as you advance through those levels of increasing complexity. By the time you reach the level of molecules, things can get very complex. Man has not yet made all possible chemical combinations because the number is so large.

You are right that there is only one reality. When we look at the world around us we see things that move in relation to us. Sometimes these things intersect and their motions are changed in certain ways. There are other ways that we can imagine that the motions could change during an interaction between them, but they never act in those other ways. This tells us that the ways that we see the motions change during an interaction are a result of the way the things are made. Their structures only allow the generation of the interaction results that we see. Written into these structures are the laws or paths of action that allow for the production of the observed interaction results and disallow any other results. These laws are not men's abstract laws, but are operational laws that are built into reality. Men only use abstract language forms to model or represent those laws that are built into natural structures.

When I look at the world around me I don't see just one unified visible infinite physical surface. I see many objects each of which has its own complete surface that may or may not be connected to any other visible surface. As an example, I can take a balloon and add just enough helium to it when I blow it up, so that it will stay where I place it in the air when I carefully let go of it and will not be touching any other visible surface. If the surface of the balloon is painted so that each side looks different than the other side, I can first look at the one side that I can see and then walk around the balloon and see its complete outside surface and that it is not touching any other visible surface. I can even place mirrors behind it such that I can stand in one place and see one side of its surface directly and at the same time I can also look at the mirrors and see the light that has reflected off of the other side of its surface and hit the mirrors and then reflected off of the mirrors and entered my eyes allowing me to at the same time see the back side of the balloon also. You would have to tell me what you understand this one infinite dimension to be and how it works to let us see all that we see when we look at the world around us before I can make a comment on that because you apparently define dimension differently than is commonly done by most that I have seen in this world. When 2 things intersect and their motions are changed in some way as a result of that interaction, what do you understand to have caused their motion changes? Is their surface in any way involved in generating those changes? I ask this because light can cause motion changes also that are similar to the changes that are generated by the interaction of 2 things that have surfaces. Light does not appear to be infinite to me because when I turn on a flashlight I see that light begins to come out of the front of the flashlight. Since it has a beginning at that point, it cannot be infinite because infinite light would not have a beginning or ending point.

I will try to read your paper and make a comment on it as you requested me to do. It may take me some time, however.

In past years I have had trouble keeping track of the comments that I make on other people's papers and blogs, etc., so this year I am trying a new way to better control things. I will place my response to any comment on my page on both my page and on the commenters page unless the commenter requests that I don't do so and I will place my comment on anyone else's page also on my page, so I will have an easily accessible copy of it to refer to.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

I read your paper and at the beginning you talk about a plethora of surfaces and you then mention several things and say that they have complete surfaces. This leads me to believe that each thing has its own complete surface that is not a part of other surfaces. Later in your paper you seem to be saying that there is only one surface. How can both be true or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in some way? Please clarify what you mean. You say that light is a nonentity, are you saying that it does not exist? You mention invisible radiance causes light to appear on infinite surface. What is the nature of this invisible radiance and how does it make light to appear on surface? If light does not exist, how can I see it on a surface?

An amoeba's surface is not as simple as you might think. It has sensors or as you would call them eyes that help it to observe obstacles and food and when it finds food it has protein machines that move parts of its surface to enclose it around the food, which is then taken into it and digested. It appears from what you say that to you the base of all things is an infinite dimension. Are there any characteristics of this dimension other than that it is infinite and that it contains an infinite visible physical surface? Is the dimension completely filled by the surface that is contained in it or does it also contain anything else in it or is there any empty part of this dimension? Is this dimension also illuminated by the light or just the surface that is contained within it?

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

I would still like for you to answer my questions and tell me about the nature of the infinite dimension so I can understand how it fits into what I see when I look at the world around me. Part of my work in this world has shown me that people do not always mean the same things when they use the same words. It is apparent to me that you do not accept man's standard concept of a 3 dimensional world, but at the same time you must have a way to explain the concepts of directions that one can go or move relative to other things that he can see around him to go from one place where he is near some things to another place where he is not near those things, but is near other things, and to go there faster or slower etc., which are very easy to observe with our eyes. A theory that can't explain how these simple every day observations of things in this world work could not be true.

It is just as logical for every object to have its own complete individual surface and that surface can be in contact with the surfaces of other objects.

Do you consider the air around us a surface? I ask this because you say that surface is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, but when I am in a room, the ceiling, walls, and floor surfaces are illuminated by light from a ceiling light, but the air does not appear to be illuminated by light. It appears to be invisible. I see right through the air and see the walls behind it, but the surface of the walls blocks vision of anything beyond the walls. If I turn the light off, all I see is black. Did the ceiling, floor, walls, and myself all suddenly turn black, but are still illuminated by the infinite non-surface light or is the light not always illuminating all of the surface so that some of it is not always visible?

At the bottom of page 7 of your paper, you say "Infinite non-surface light requires no empowerment because it is a nonentity." An entity is something that exists, therefore, a nonentity is something that does not exist because the prefix non means not. Also, on page 2 in the next to bottom paragraph you say "I use the word "am" because using the word "is" implies that there was a different physical condition prior to the is, best described by the use of the word "was".". This does not get away from the connection with the word (was) because (am) is the first person present tense word for state of being (I am here.) The first person past tense of (am) is (was). (I was here.) You were referring to the third person present tense word (is) (It is here.) and the third person past tense word (was). (It was here.) Only the second person word for state of being does not use the word (was). The present tense form is (are) (You are here.) and the past tense form is (were). (You were here.) You could change from (am) to (are), but it still has the past tense state word (were), so I don't know that it would really help much to get your point across. You could try using a modifier word like endlessly or eternally, etc.

Do the radiants have a surface and what is the speed of their travel from the sun to the earth? How do the radiants turn into light when they hit a surface? From what you have told me so far the radiants seem to be a lot like energy photons to me. How does your theory handle light that is not visible such as microwaves or radio waves?

Why can't there be more than one object, each with its own complete surface and its own physical state that may or may not be illuminated by light depending on whether light is present and hits (interacts with) it? That sounds just as logical to me. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man's standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man's current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional object to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a spherical baseball on a table and look at it, I don't see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional object. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles and the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional object. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don't appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some things that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these things. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, things would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.

I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many objects that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man's current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.

Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren't actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I'm sure you will agree to that.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

Even though I logged in and it said I was logged into my account, my above post went in as anonymous. You probably could have figured out that it was me, but I am sending this to make sure and to see if this login works ok.

Sincerely,

Paul

Joe,

I have decided that I will vote on the essays written by everyone that posts a comment in my forum. You posted your usual boilerplate in my forum. Therefore, I am following your succinct instruction and I am scoring 1 for simplicity.

Good Luck with That.

Gary Simpson

Dear Joe,

Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man's standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional entities. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man's current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional entity to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a baseball on a table and look at it, I don't see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional entity. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles to form twelve joints between them that meet at the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional entity. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don't appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some entities that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these entities. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of each of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, entities would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.

I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many entities with complete surfaces that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man's current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.

Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren't actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I'm sure you will agree to that.

When you say, "All real visible entities have a real visible surface.", are you saying that they are all continuously illuminated by light and are, therefore, always visible or just that they will be visible if they are illuminated by light, But may not be visible when light is not present? Does the light illuminate the surfaces itself or is it the radiants that the light sheds that illuminate all the surfaces? You say that light is a nonentity, but you also say that it exists. This is contrary to man's definition of the word nonentity. What is your definition of nonentity? If it exists, it must be composed of something that has some properties. What is it composed of and what are its properties that identify it as light instead of some other nonentity?

So far, you continue to use your same examples that involve entities that are too far away to closely examine their sizes and shapes and are observed only from certain limited observation angles, etc. and completely ignore and give no response to examples that do allow you to see and observe that a ball is a sphere, a cube is not just a square, and the ball actually travels and takes time to travel from the pitcher to the catcher, etc. This tells me that either you do not desire to share your understanding with others, since I have seen this same pattern in your conversations with others also, or you know that your theory is not valid because it cannot explain these other observations. As an example, even if you see the ball at a distance at the game, if you are sitting in a seat that is centered between the pitcher and the catcher so that the pitcher is on the left side of you and the catcher is on the right side of you, you will clearly see that the ball moves from the pitcher and travels all of the distance from him to the catcher and continues to look to be about the same size during the whole trip, if you are very far from it. This travel does not occur instantly, but takes some time for it to be completed and is, therefore, at a finite speed.

Your theory needs to be able to explain all that we see and observe in any way, not just a small part of what we see and observe under certain very limited circumstances. If you find a place where it doesn't work, look to see why it doesn't work and how you can modify your theory so that it does work in that respect. If you keep doing that long enough, you will end up with a theory that comes closer and closer to accurately modeling reality. None of man's current theories are completely perfect models of reality, although many would like you to believe that theirs is. There is still so much in the world and so much that can happen in the world that man is currently not even aware of, that it is unrealistic to think that any theory will be able to accurately model all of reality without any errors or omissions, etc. In order to have any hope of getting people to understand and accept some of these things, so that advancement can occur, it is sometimes necessary to use over simplifications, leave out some details that would not be believable to those of a specific technology level, or could not be proven in any way given the current technology level and current beliefs, etc., but that which is provided should work with current understandings at a level that is equal to or greater than current understandings and add some real valuable increase in understanding. Best wishes in that endeavor.

Sincerely,

Paul