Essay Abstract

Humanity has created mathematical and physical descriptions of the universe that aid survival. Emergent philosophy can be used to develop better models of universe fundamentals. Mathematics and physics observations confirm models through experiment and measurement. Still outside the deterministic knowledge are consciousness, aims, and intention. These concepts are part of humanity and part of the universe. Currently, these concepts require useable definitions. By applying more useable definitions guided by emergent philosophy, such concepts may yet be described by mathematics. Because a single universe exists, a single Theory of Everything exists involving causal relations from the very small to the very large and involving the cause of society's success and life's consciousness.

Author Bio

I was reared on a farm and blooded as a hunter at 13. After 4 years in the Army, I left as a captain. I have a MS in physics. I sold my electronics company in 1991 (I was 49); retired; retired from retiring; and became an inventor and amateur astronomer. My interest in cosmology developed. I conceived a radical new cosmology model in 2002 and started publishing papers and instructing at Blue Ridge Community College. (http://myplace.frontier.com/~jchodge/ ) see also summary videos https://www.youtu.be.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw

Download Essay PDF File

Dear author,

You concluded: "because a single universe exists, a single Theory

of Everything exists involving causal relations from the very small to the very large and involving the cause of society's success and life' consciousness".

May I suggest inserting words like "the dream of" or "the goal to approach" between "exists," and "a single TOE"?

++++

    NOTE: YouTube address

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw

    Upper case C at "/Ucc0" to "/UCc"

    hodge

    Thanks for your view. My intent was to state that the TOE exists in nature whether humans want to find it or not. Whether humans want to dream or attempt to find it is up to the humans. This is getting close to another FQXi : I take math, emergence as in nature. Humans can discover what is in nature. Any human caused creation may not be in nature and, therefore, is probably not real. I didn't stress it but probability arguements suggest the nature's emergent path is modeled incorrectly. Quantum mechanics is such a model. It needs considerable restatement. which I have done in http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719 STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM.

    Hodge

    Dear Instructor Hodge,

    Every real thing has a real surface.

    One real Universe must have only one reality. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Thanks.

    I suggested studying neural nets and bundels as a possible way to understand consciousness in a deterministic model. You suggested the layering of the brain must be part of understanding deterministic consciousness is very interesting.

    The 2 concepts together suggests to me the functioning of PLAs (Programable logic arrays) as a means to explain how bit inputs from light, sound can be turned into action - one big logic array processing bundles (parallel signels) to muscle stimulus in long string of PLAs.

    Years ago I studied the idea of using oxides on metal surfaces as bits. An oxide bound to a metal surface is a diode. Place 2metal surfaces togeher with an oxide between. The oxcide can be swithced to one or the othr surfave bu the polarity of a pulse (nerves act by pulses). layers of crossing metal paths (0.1 mil wide, 0.1 mil between). The difficulty was the bond was temporary and required refreshing and constant pulsing. This is starting to sound like a neuron to neuron mechanism.

    Thanks for article.

    Hodge

    Dear author,

    Just a brief note if I may - there is no smoking gun evidence that 'a single universe' exists. Nor is there evidence that a TOE actually exists (Marcelo Gleiser , for one, makes a book length argument that the assumption of a TOE stems from subconscious cognitive bias), nor is there really that if there in fact is a single universe, then a TOE would be a consequence of it. Purely causal relationships can also be moot, as Delayed Choice Experiments and such may sometimes suggest.

    I am not saying that the single universe assumption or the existence of a TOE are necessarily wrong, but that these should not be posited without very extensive argumentation.

    Just my 2 cents'

    Kind regards,

    H Chris

    Ransford

    Thanks for commenting.

    Look around. You are in a single universe. If you mean 1 and only 1 universe , then you have misinterpreted the phrase. If you mean to postulate miltivers, then you have it backward -there is no unique evidence that more than our universe exists. That would require evidence. (The multiverse is an interpretation of QM. Many interpretations of QM exist. To accept a multiverse requires observation evidence that rejects all the other interpretations and does not reject multiverse) .

    I like a modified Bohm Interpretation (BI) with a partice light (photon) being directed by a pilot wave. The weakness of BI is it omits how and where the pilot wavw originates. Consider General Relativity. Matter warps space ( medium like an aether) ant the warp directs matter. So, the pilot wave in the BI is caused by matter. (Unity of GR and the small?)

    The advantage of BI is that there is an experiment that rejects all QM interpretation except the modified BI.

    The following papers present an experiment that is easily done that rejects a wave like nature of the light (photon) and by extention the electron.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw

    Then play the video titled Photon Diffraction

    http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603

    "Diffraction experiment and its Stoe photon simulation program rejects wave models of light" click on mse42MY.pdf .

    As you said more documentation than 10 pages allow except as a reference.

    Science logic has to have some postulates. The paper postulated the emergence philosophy was a Emergence Principle of the universe. From that it follows the single TOE exists.

    Another thing to note, the QM model as a probabilistic model is an indiator of a set of agents unknown but existing. I think they are my plenum (continous that supports wave action and hods matter). This was mentioned.

    If you chose another assumption, find the data.

    BTW. In the STOE model there has to be a Source (at the center of spiral galaxies) and a Sink (elliptical galaxies). These have to come and go from somewhere, perhaps another type of universe. But not a 3D+time.

    There is considerably more evidence to support the Emercence Principle than the multiverse from QM.

    I regard words/concepts such as intent, free will, conscious, mind as being without merit in science because they lack sufficient definition. Look at these papers, they use the same words and mean different things. For example, look at the phrasing of "Delayed Choice experiment". Especially "choice" as if that is what is being measued - Its not. Like the ancient Greeks the matter has no "Choice" or other human abstract quality. My papers above show there is a deterministic model to explain Young's and Hodge's experiments.

    Hodge

    Congrats Mr. Hodge ! Again a great essay from your pen and you have, fortunately, not retired from thinking. TOE and the single universe are indeed fascinating research topics, but you mention very clearly that survival comes first. This seems to be our inter-section, concerning maths, physics and humanity. Best: stephen i. ternyik

      Dear John,

      You offer an interesting chronicle of the development of matter from low-scale agents all the way up to large-scale agents, all thru the construct of "emergence". As I gathered, you attempt to visualize how cognition and intelligence had emerged thru the evolutive journey in a rather descriptive language, instead of an interpretative or demonstrative method as would be expected.

      Of course the problem with the "emergence" construct in this context is the question of the death of intelligence past the human agent shell, since one would expect human intelligence to evolve into a grander regime past the human shell. Most would agree that is actually not the case. Your statement "Humanity is the more complex structure" confirms that you assert that view as well.

      Left to wonder what is there in the agency of "emergence" that succeeds in constructing higher complexity for certain things and fails to do so for others.

      Of course these are all quite difficult questions and there is great merits even in just attempting to tackle them, short of resolving them. Very laudable effort on that count.

      Good luck in the contest, John.

      Joseph

      _________________________

        Joseph

        Math is a very descriptive language. I thought the challenge was to link the poorly defined concepts such as "intelligence", "intent", "mind", "intent", etc. to math. I think humanity has not clearly defined these concepts.

        The Greeks in the example assigned these human characteristics to rocks. We and they are part of the universe, so if we have these characteristics, rocks should have them also (or so they reasoned I think). Now math models the rock universe quite well, so we reason these undefined characteristics should have the math character. Well, I suggest we need different concepts about how this can come about.

        Your second paragraph is using undefined concepts of death (an ending), Intelligence, construct, intent, plan), etc. An "agent" is the base from which the entity is formed. If a person is an agent, then the entity is family, society, state, nation. These last die (end) though competition which is a subset of "convergence".

        Start by redefining the problem.

        Start with stimuli input to eyes, ears, and go through some process which is to be mathematically defined (I suggest Boolean is the logic) process through some organization of neurons. End with some stimuli to muscles.

        Hodge

        Dear Mr. Hodge,

        I could not agree with some of your attitudes, for example:

        "Geometry talks of extended objects"

        I remind you that the Ruder Boškovic had predicted much of what is now considered an achievement in physics, just using geometry. I quote him about non-extending:

        "The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points", ...

        You say:

        "Mathematics we use that developed out of the physics of the universe. Therefore, mathematics is part of the physics of the universe "

        I think it is completely wrong. Mathematics has developed far beyond the framework of contemporary physics as we know it today. Physics need in the future to understand the practical value of some already well-known mathematical principles.

        Best Regards,

        Branko Zivlak

          Branko Zivlak

          The discussion about extended or points of objects is at least as old as ancient Greeks. I chose the extended view. Boškovic and Liebniz differed from Newton on these issues. Newton was found to be more useful. Quoting Boškovic or Liebniz is a poor source when the quote differs from Newton. Physics today accepts that objects are divisible (bad word) into subatomic objects with continuous forces between them. A point description renders this idea unworkable. (How many points in 1 meter? Are there more point in 2 meters? How can here be more than an infinite number of points in the 1 meter? Physics gibberish. Useless!)

          The paper explains the quick summation: (1) Find the point that is 1/3 of an object! It is not a practical question. (2) Much of physics is done with the idea of "transformation" from the measurement to the theoretical. If a transformation is used, part of the calculation must include an inverse transformation to get the predicted measurement. Point physics produces singularities - many singularities. The means the transformation is questionable. Well, if the experiment works, it's OK except for the purist. (3) There is a need in physics for some part of our universe to be continuous such as when discussing fields. The STOE model posits one of the two constituents of our universe is a continuous (infinitely divisible - I don't like this term as it involves division and infinity -2 questionable concepts) medium. Waves have to be transmitted. Even if it is a wave of points (your view) there is a continuous force between them. Otherwise, not a useful description of the physics.

          You'll note the paper mentioned my dislike as non-physical the idea of infinity and singularity which point physics must have.

          "Mathematics has developed far beyond the framework of contemporary physics as we know it today." No. We just haven't discovered why any relation works. Fractal math mentioned in the paper was in the universe long before it was discovered in math. (that is why I mentioned it.) algebra math is simply counting things or standards. The relation among numbers is still simply counting. Trigonometry includes geometry in this simply counting exercise. The books on math functions includes many functions that seemingly represent number relations that exist in nature. Well, there are book length statements on this, too.

          The overall position in the paper is that the stated view is needed for the advance in physics.

          Physics concepts and models must make predictions about measurements and observations in the end. A model that fails to make predictions or, at least, correspond to prior models (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) fails. The question for all the models in this contest is "what is the prediction?" or at least "What is the possibility to make prediction?"

          John,

          As you mentioned in your review of my essay, there are many similarities in our thinking. In a different context, I like your 3 scales of cosmological, classical and quantum. I can see the combination of the three regarding TOE but I feel the glue that ties them together is peculiar motion and EM force. According to a "How the Universe Works" video on "forces of Mass Construction" the blueprint is draw with magnetic lines -- emanating from the microscopic and the macro. Dark Matter became an example of a galactic creation. Your you tube presentations seem to relate to this picture as well, maybe not so much in creating dark matter, but mentioning EM forces in a galactic context..

          Jim Hoover

            James Lee Hoover

            Thanks for responding.

            The "How the Universe works" videos are the currently accepted model. The trouble is these models (GR and QM) are inconsistent and each has many observational anomalies. Some of the anomalies are described in only ad hoc additions. The STOE corresponds to both cosmology and the small of light. It has made 3 predictions about the pioneer anomaly and the theory predicted the result of an experiment in photon diffraction. It has also explained many observation anomalies. Physics philosophy suggest the STOE to be a candidate for a replacement model.

            Hodge

            8 days later

            Good essay Hodge sir, Good discussion....

            Slight modification is required....

            In Page 3 line 8 you said both attraction and repulsion are required at large scales to explain expansion of Universe. You considered only about 40 percent of Galaxies which are red shifted, You have to consider the remaining 60 percent also for getting a true picture.....

            What do you say......?

              SNP Gupta:

              I note your Dynamic Universe Model is oriented toward galaxy and cosmology. The Scalar Theory OF Everything (STOE) seeks to relate the big, small (light), and life. The emergence Principle derived from this quest. So, let me answer your query by example. You can watch various aspects of the STOE on short videos rather than the long detailed calculations of the papers.

              https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw

              The CMB temperature calculation shows the spiral galaxy as adding the constituents (agents) of our universe and the elliptical galaxies as subtracting those constituents (agents). Along the way is discussed the entropy that causes life to emerge (the present paper). The rotation curve and the asymmetric rotation curve videos discuss how the agent plenum repels the matter of the universe and the matter agent attracts (gravity) the stars. Note the almost sideline issue is that NO model explains all rotation curves (rising, falling and flat). Generally the rising rotation curves falsify current models. Also, notice the redshift and discrete redshift videos dispute the idea the universe was born in a Big Bang and is expanding. This allows the galaxies at the edge of our observation to be as old or older (mature) than the Milky Way as you point out in you essay.

              Hodge

              Hi John,

              I think you and I tend to think alike, but I would argue a few points. A theory is a model, and it's probably more correct to say that since a single universe exists, a single theory of everything should exist.

              You suggest the universe is deterministic. This often interpreted to mean that free will is an illusion. Yet, as Stefan Weckbach points out, if an organism cannot act (of free will) then awareness of anything is irrelevant. It would have no Darwinian value and not be selected for. Thus if one thinks awareness arises in Darwinian fashion, one is almost forced to conclude that free will arises concurrently. But this complicates things considerably.

              You seem to favor "a deterministic perspective to replace probability arguments". Again, I tend to agree, as far as a solution of systems behavior is concerned, but Planck's constant brings indeterminacy into interactions, hence probability. Also "if reductionism fails, it fails because the agents are modeled incorrectly." In this sense, a universal field that interacts with local 'motion' (momentum density) consciously, is an agent that is not yet modeled correctly.

              I particularly like your section 4, focused on 'perception' and 'counting'. I hope you read my essay for my thoughts on this. But I disagree with your conclusion that, since mathematics is deterministic, this implies that the universe is deterministic. It does not. I try to show how mathematical structure is projected onto reality, potentially leading to misinterpretations.

              In section 5 you note that Newton suggested "gravity rather than a rock's intentions" direct the rock's motion. "Or we might say that the rock sensed the gravity field and moved accordingly." Or you might say that the gravity field sensed the rock's motion and affected it. If the rock had dynamic inner structure, the field might sense this too, but rocks don't have inner structure like neural nets that process stimuli from outside the rock.

              We know from general relativity (etc.) that the gravity field is effectively "aware of itself". Few think that the rock is aware of itself. I suggest that consideration of an appropriate universal field, applied to your general scheme would enlarge your model.

              Thanks for your well-written, enjoyable essay.

              Best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman