Dear Joe Fisher,

Thank you very much for your comment on my essay. I am a great fan of simplicity myself. simplicity on the far side of complexity.

You have asked me to comment on the merit of your essay and I have in the meantime taken the time to read through it and vote. In your words, "Everything should be made as simple as possible", so I was excited to expect a simple, concise elucidation on the emergence of aims and intentions from the universe that you describe. Perhaps it is not such a simple concept and I may have missed the mark. Would you be so kind as to clarify on this point when you have some time.

Regards,

Robert

    Dear Joe Fisher

    You start with a finding: all our eyes see from the outside world is surface. Ok. Then I was expecting that you developed the reasoning, go beyond what eyes can see. But I did not find that. The universe is not just what we see, or touch, or ear or taste or smell. Our senses gave us an initial information and our aim is to find what is behind that. That is what allows us to predict how systems evolve; and when we predict it correctly, we assume that to a certain extent we have approached the reality.

    Therefore, here you present your starting point; now I would like to see the continuation.

    Best regards

    Alfredo Oliveira

      Dear Robert Groess,

      Simplicity cannot be simplified. As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and 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. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have only described what they thought it consisted of instead of believing what they actually saw.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira,

      Simplicity cannot be simplified. As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and 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. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have only described what they thought it consisted of instead of believing what they actually saw.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Joe Fisher

      On seeing the comments to your essay, i got a suspicious, but I do not want to be unfair, so I am here to ask you: is it true that to those that comment favorable, you give a high vote, no matter their essay; and to those that are not so favorable, you vote "1"?

      Alfredo Oliveira

      Hi Jo I read your well-written essay, enjoyable for that and for the delightful pun " self-taut " great!

      As an artist I could well understand the logic of accepting the reality of only what is literally seen at any one time. In Mideaval art each figure and shape is seen solid and whole, but the trend since the Rainnescance has been to only see from one viewpoint - and necessarily surfaces.

      However..

      if you look at a video of a baseball being manufactred like this one you can see all the stuff filling its insides. What happens to that material to justify your saying only the surface exists? Another problyem is with transparent materials such as a vase. Inside you can see a solid spca full of flower stems, water bubles and so forth. You will prbably say we are only seeing the surface of that.

      OK no problem thanks to FQXI we are tfree to express our ideas here whatever they are.

      Keep well

      Vladimir

        Dear Alfredo,

        I have not voted on any of the essays that have been published so far, and I will not vote on any of the essays yet to be published when they are published in this competition. I am not trying to bargain with my fellow complex abstractions addicted essayists, I am trying my very best to educate them enough so that they will accept simple natural reality.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Vladimir ,

        No matter in which direction an eye looks in, that eye will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces. All "stuff" and all "material" including all gasses and atmospheres are seamlessly merged into one single visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light occurring in one infinite dimension.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Joe Fisher

        OK! I though so, that is why I put the question, to give you the opportunity to clarify the subject. You know, it seems that there are some "trolls" around that are voting "1" by reasons that are certainly not the best. This is not a "reality show", at least it should not be. The important point is that we can friendly discuss each other ideas.

        On my side, I up vote the essays that interest me the most, I do not down vote anybody. Community members can do it, but I think that authors of the essays should restrain to positive appreciations (above 5) when they consider that an essay presents a relevant contribution.

        All the best

        Alfredo

          Dear Alfredo,,

          I think a fairer method of scoring would be if each essay contestant had to list from 1 to 5, the five other essays he or she thought were the best in the completion. The winner would then have an aggregate superiority, rather than a distorted averaged number as happens now. My problem is that most of the essays I have read are far better written than mine. I am hoping that the judges will judge my essay on the originality of its expressed idea of nature only being capable of furnishing a reality that could be understood by all creatures.

          All the best to you.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          Dear Joe Fisher,

          Thank you for visiting my essay and saying it is nice. I have downloaded your essay and will be reading it next week. We have communicated before in a past essay contest. I need to look at your position again. I remember that our approaches were different. I will see. Best wishes to you.

          James Putnam

          4 days later

          Dear Joe,

          I am inspired by your deep criticism and enthusiasm for promoting the idea of simplicity of complexity (reality). I think that only the deepest criticism of the philosophical foundations of modern "fundamental science" will make it possible to overcome the crisis of understanding and "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin) and build a model of the Universum that is uniform for physicists and lyricists , filled with the meanings of the "LifiWorld" (E. Husserl ). My high score for the promotion of the principle of simplicity.

          Yours faithfully,

          Vladimir

            9 days later

            Dear Joe Fisher, I think you did not see my answer:

            "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." That's my intention, indeed, with the essay. In this case, I deal with the problems dealt with the cornerstones of evolution, mainly the beginning, the origin. The proposal for chemical clocks is quite complicated in itself, as you can check in the additional notes and references. All you can do is approximate set of approximate chemical equations, which describe quite well the mechanism, but secondary products might be left out. I also made some simplified arguments using arrows on section 2, in order to show how to deal with the most important operators or regulators of the reaction.

            The problem it is that the usual programs are extremely complicated and do not have a realistic expectation of a path from "primitive soup" to a cell. So, as you can see in the abstract, what I propose is more in the direction of an invitation to a new experimental program.

            Dear Joe Fisher, I think you did not see my answer:

            "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." That's my intention, indeed, with the essay. In this case, I deal with the problems dealt with the cornerstones of evolution, mainly the beginning, the origin. The proposal for chemical clocks is quite complicated in itself, as you can check in the additional notes and references. All you can do is approximate set of approximate chemical equations, which describe quite well the mechanism, but secondary products might be left out. I also made some simplified arguments using arrows on section 2, in order to show how to deal with the most important operators or regulators of the reaction.

            The problem it is that the usual programs are extremely complicated and do not have a realistic expectation of a path from "primitive soup" to a cell. So, as you can see in the abstract, what I propose is more in the direction of an invitation to a new experimental program.