Dear Vladimir,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. There are not different types of surfaces for that would mean that there would also have to be different types of separations of surfaces. That would also give rise to the possibility of there being some sort of anti-surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Уважаемый Р'РѕСЂРёСЃ,
благодарю вас за прочтение моего эссе и для понимания его.
Р"жо Фишер, реалист
Dear Joe,
Very interesting essay, could you explain a bit about what you mean by infinite dimensions of universe? I believe personally dimensions are in our mind and real universe apart from what we observe is not comprehensive.
Kind regards
Koorosh
Joe, your theory is similar to projective geometry - there is a science, she engaged serious people. Christian artists who paint icons, paint their way back prospects. The modern French painters are also in fashion to paint the world flat, with no desire to show its volume.
Levitation, which I gave a materialistic explanation in his essay, is also a movement on an infinite plane. Read it again and evaluate from the point of view of traffic on an infinite plane.
Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko
Dear Boris,
It is not my theory. The fact that only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the fact that 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, am irrefutable.
Joe Fisher, Realist.
Dear Koorosh,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. All of the physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have overlooked the fact that one real visible Universe must have only one ascertainable physical aspect and that real observable aspect must be infinite in all of its singular representation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear joe,
I think you are trying to tell a same case repeats at two different stages through your words-'Newton was clearly implying that there was more than one state of physicality'. But in reality it is never possible to be so...according to my concept there is vast difference between my and Newtonian concept...see my essay "Newtonian Dynamics: An explicit diversion from reality"
Dear Bishhal,,
I am not trying to describe different "stages" of anything. Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
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.
Joe Fisher,
Joe Fisher,
I gave you a 10 because you intuitively grasped the concept of protective geometry (the one infinite dimension). So, I think this is great achievement. So, I think you must look for everything related to protective geometry and studied with a great care. If you do, you will eventually find algebraic geometry. Keep advancing. You will achieve great heights.
As for all living things have eyes, I agree. Eyes, as in the ability to perceive the environment through electromagnetic spectrum is common to all living beings. It is also by the EM field that all cell machinery works. In the end, only reduces to 1 measurement (which requires some kind of information processing, even in virus) in the EM field.
I just noticed that Boris Dizhechko made a similar comment, concerning projective geometry. So, you have the independent view of 2 different researchers which might help you expand your ideas.
Dear Daniel,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for rating it so highly.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Joe,
Your essay is thought provoking, well written and entertaining. I agree with you that there is an underlying simplicity to reality that defies a complex mathematical approach. You have a strength of conviction that not many have.
Regards,
Peter
Dear Peter,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay properly, and for your exceptionally kind comment.
Joe Fisher, Realist
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
