Jose,

Thanks for an interesting read.

You seem to imply that the Thermodynamic Law of Entropy is the result of the expansion of the universe. I have sometimes thought this myself. You also seem willing to abandon the "arrow of time". If so, you might find my essay to be of interest.

I am not clear as to why there are emergent properties and why time and a large scale causes them to be. This seems to be a shared line of thinking presented in several of this batch of essays, but it is not clear to me why it should be the case.

I was not aware of the factor of 20 increase in velocity that you mention regarding velocity for each of the cosmic structures. That does place an upper limit on the structures that are available. I definitely agree that "free will" and choice are only meaningful concepts if there are more than a few available options. Therefore, your emphasis upon medium sized structures is correct I think.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    Stefan Weckbach,

    Thank you for the constructive opinion. We just differ regarding freewill; to me, freewill is just the capability to select from allowed actions; so computers have freewill. There is only a slight difference between a deterministic event and and a freewill event. Freewill is possible just because of the deterministic nature of the action selected using freewill. In a non-deterministic world, freewill is impossible.

    Quoting you, "I don't agree with you that you have explained how free will can come into play for the course of events in a cosmos". Here I think there is a slight misunderstanding. Freewill has no role in deciding the course of events in the cosmos. Whether freewill emerges or not, the course of events in the cosmos as a whole will be the same. Only that, during the course of of events, the environment invariably passes through a period suitable for freewill to emerge, and because of the deterministic nature of 'actions', freewill does arise.

    Humans have freewill (the capability to select from allowed actions); our freewill actions does not at all affect the course of events in the Cosmos. Whatever we do, humans and all life forms will perish within a few billion years.

    I will be going through your essay soon.

    Jose P Koshy

    Gary Simpson,

    From what you have stated, I think you have carefully gone through my essay, not just a glance. Thank you for the effort taken.

    Regarding abandoning the arrow of time, I will go through your essay. It may take a few days. Anyway, in my opinion, time moves forward, but some sets of events happen again and again.

    We do not know why matter (if we start from matter) has the basic properties; these are just arbitrary; but the emergent properties can be traced to the basic properties. If you consider matter also as something emerged, then emergent properties are not explainable. Starting from arbitrary assumptions is better than introducing arbitrary assumptions later; so in my opinion, it is better to start from matter.

    A nearly 20 times increase in speed is what is observed in solar system; that may indicate that galaxy clusters are the individual units of the universe. Not only that, it may also indicate that motion at speed 'c' is a fundamental property of matter; we are actually moving at nearly one-third the speed of light along with our cluster.

    Jose p Koshy

    Dear Jose, thanks again. Now you have clarified your definition of free will and i understand what you mean when using the wording. I may annotate that your definition of free will implies that human beings have no free will at all, since their actions are all determined by external and internal physical inputs into the system that generates consciousness and 'decisions'. These inputs are, according to your theory, determined by physics and a human being is just like a computer, a data processing device. Computers and all turing machines do not select from allowed actions, not because there are no allowed actions, but because there is no selection. The only 'thing' that could select something, is the user at the interface who gives a certain input (instead of another allowed input) and with this the computer is determined to follow a strictly deterministic path to output a predetermined result (may the latter be known to the user or not).

    • [deleted]

    • Post #14

    Stefan Weckbach,

    Determinism does not mean that there is only one end result. The number of end results depend on number of variables. To me, throwing dice gives deterministic results. If the dice has six sides, the number of possibilities is always six; if it has 64 sides, then there are 64 possibilities; only that you cannot predict the result in individual cases. The result becomes random only if you get infinite possibilities. The word 'deterministic' can have different shades of meaning.

    Another example is the crisscross paths in a town. Each path joins two junctions, and all paths are deterministic. A person selects his path at each junction and reaches his destination. He refers to the Google-map to decide which path is to be selected. Similarly, a computer driven car selects the path with the help of Google-map and reaches the destination. Both have freewill.

    If in the above case, if the path leads to a different junction each time you pass, we can say the paths are random. With random paths, chance decides whether you can reach your destination; freewill has no role there. In the case of a dice having six sides, there are six paths only, the paths are deterministic, but we cannot know which path we are going, until we reach the end of the path.

    Jose P koshy

    Stefan Weckbach,

    Only after posting the above, I noticed another angle of your post. When one speaks of human being, it is something whole, not a collection of parts. Your brain processes and decides, but brain is not 'you'. You complete the decided action. Similarly, a processor is not the computer; the computer includes all its peripherals that can do the work ordered by the processor.

    Jose P Koshy

    4 days later

    Dear Jose,

    A bio is a bio. An ad is an ad. A thesis is a thesis. See, I can write like you! This is to say that a few words about yourself would have been more welcome than the self-promotion you offered for your Author Bio.

    A cosmos in self-realization is an interesting idea that has been in the literature ever since Carl Sagan, to whom we owe so much, controversially publicized this view in the 70's I believe. (Not that I disagree.) You pushed it further and expounded a story line about how the internal constraints between the two ends of the spectrum of matter create the conditions for structure, simple and complex, and for life as well. You credit the mathematics with the regency of the Laws and deny such to the physics.

    This is all well taken, except that you should agree that your theory pertains instead to the philosophy of physics. It is manifestly not a Physical Theory per se. If you claim primacy of the Laws of mathematics, you at least owe it to the Theory a mathematical formulation of your views, which unfortunately is nowhere to be seen.

    We then find ourselves hard-pressed to qualify your theory as the long-sought Theory of Everything per your claim, and have to fall back to the story line of Gauge Theories instead, because they, more reliably and despite incompleteness, offer mathematical discipline at their core. Don't you agree?

    Nevertheless, you showed imagination, effort for consistency, offered some interesting points of cosmological data, while giving us a clear and clean presentation.

    Good luck!

    Joseph

      Joseph J. Jean-Claude,

      Thank you for responding. You started your comment asking 'who are you?'. That may mean 'what is written' is not important , but 'who wrote' is important. The truth is that I have no "author-bio" to promote myself; I have just a "theoretical model" to promote.

      You would have noticed the subject selected by FQXI for the essay contest; it has a philosophical tone. So what you said is correct. The overall tone of the essay is meant to be philosophical; 'a reader recognizing that' is something that makes me happy.

      What I claim is that I have arrived at 'a complete theory of everything', not the 'long-sought Theory of Everything'. My theory will be subjected to scrutiny by the scientific community, if they feel that it contains at least 'something'.

      The essay is not a presentation of the "theoretical model" proposed by me. As pointed out by you, 'mathematical formulation of my views' is absent in it. If you are interested, you can refer to my papers in Vixra.org. However, if you think that 'where the papers are' matters rather than 'what the papers contain', then of course, I will be at a loss.

      If your concluding senetence represents what you actually felt, and is not just a feel-happy-compliment offered to me, then I am satisfied.

      Jose P Koshy

      Hello Jose.

      You are probably too much on the defensive. On Author Bio, if I see someone with prestigious credentials, yet delivering an essay with many commonplaces in their field of science, with little contribution to the subject at hand, I am not going to be sympathetic in my grading. However, to someone with not many credentials or none, but with an essay that is well structured, well argued, with fresh ideas, and moreover to the point of the essay, I am going to be very generous in my grading.

      So I do not at all value "who you are" over the merits of your essay. This is open science here, that is the whole point of this contest. Gathering fresh ideas from the public to perhaps feed the too closed world of academic thinking. This is at least my view of the contest.

      I do not disagree that philosophical essays are part of the contest call. However I tend to favor essays that address the gist of the problem at hand: deliver a mathematical approach to cognition.

      I tend to see myself as a fair and honest individual. You will see that I have ranked your essay, even with a passing grade, which many if not most authors here do not do (no ranking at all) for reasons that are easy to understand. So I mean what I say, and did not make any comment just "to make you feel good".

      On Vixra, that may be another conversation. I would just say it's a mixed plate. It would have been better to include in your essay contest here whatever mathematical support you have in store.

      Relax and have fun!

      Joseph

      7 days later

      Dear Koshy,

      Your words that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are mutually exclusive in first page 3 rd para are very correct. It is nice essay. And the concept ...." there is a 'set of allowed actions', and structures having freewill have to select actions from the 'allowed set'.... Is nice idea, Good essay!

      Probably I have to mention here for your information...that "Your motion at speed C " to be a theory of everything is having a problem, there was recent CERN experiment finding super luminal neutrinos... How will you explain that...?

        Parameswara Gupta,

        Thank you for going through my essay.

        In 2012, CERN has corrected the initial claim regarding superluminal neutrinos; the finding was due to equipment failures. I am unaware of any other 'more recent' findings. As of now, I think, nothing is found to move faster than light.

        Jose P Koshy

        Dear Dr Koshy

        Oh Really,

        I dont know it , Can you please give some details about it

        Parameswara Gupta,

        Please note, I have no doctorate. Regarding superluminal neutrinos, please refer the Wikipedia page here

        Jose P Koshy

        7 days later

        Dear Jose

        Thank you for your enlightning post on my essay

        Of course QM is grainy, it is the essence of the this way of thinking.

        A way of thinking is expressed as "idea". Ideas are also constituted of parts because no idea can exist without time, it is the "order" of the parts of the idea that are constituting a new idea through consciousness.

        The infinite loop of "pulsations" as you name it, is also a way of thinking, so in my perception an availability, thee reducing is again the result of time, we just cannot perceive a timeless and spaceless infinity of thoughts. But any thought is a part of the TOTAL, without the smallest there is no Total.

        best regards

        Wilhelmus

        Dear Sir,

        Your expression is highly absorbing and we have similar ideas on many fronts, though the mainstream scientists, with their superstitious belief on "established theories" and inability to think out of box, will dismiss it. So you had to be content with viXra. However, in one or two cases, you also seem to follow the majority.

        Is the universe expanding? Expanding universe concept came from galactic red-shift. But now we have seen blue-shift also. So is the universe expanding in certain regions and contracting at other regions? If the universe is expanding, how do we see galactic mergers? It should never happen. Dark matter concept began with the galaxy rotation curve problem, where the equation contains parameters like H = Hubble's constant. ρ = matter density of the universe. k = curvature of the Universe. c=Velocity of light G=Gravitational constant. Λ=cosmological constant. R=radius of Universe. Have these parameters been measured precisely? Is it ever possible to measure the mass, radius and curvature of the universe? Dark energy concept assumed homogeneity of the CMB. But it has a direction: the Axis of Evil. You talk of ΛCDM. But what it is?

        If we look at the universe, every structure is spinning around its axis. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the universe itself is spinning around its axis. Due to various distances, the galactic clusters seem to move away from each other at times to come close at other times like planets in our solar system.

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Thank you Jose P Koshy,

          I also dont have a PhD...

          I will go through the wiki link, Thank you for the nice info...

          Best Regards

          =snp.gupta

          Dear Koshy,

          Neutrinos travelled faster than light....

          See the wiki page...

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

          ... Said.."This comparison indicated neutrinos had arrived at the detector 57.8 nanoseconds faster than if they had been traveling at the speed of light in vacuum."

          See the attachment which gives news as well as an arXiv paper which can be downloaded...

          Best Regards

          =snp.gupta

          ALERT

          Your post has been added to this topic

          There was an error attaching the file 'MINOS expt Nature 480437a.pdf': '2'

          Please search the above file

          Best Regards

          snp.gupta

          Basudeba Mishra,

          The present accepted models are the best so far available. When we say that these are incorrect, we have to propose a better model, and not simply point out the possible errors. We have nothing against the present theories, which are still incomplete. We try to complete it by making changes either very fundamental or just marginal; our aim is not deriding them, though sometimes we may use such words for emphasis.

          When a galaxy moves towards us, the radiation from it is blue shifted; if it moves away, it is red-shifted. Again, when a radiation gets cooled, it is red-shifted; if it gets heated, it is blue-shifted. Thus there are two causes for blue/red shift. In an expanding universe, the radiations get cooled. So all radiations, including the ones that are initially blue shifted (due to the direction being towards us) are red-shifted. Naturally we observe some blue-shifted galaxies.

          ΛCDM model is the present accepted model of the universe; however, I do not accept that model. My model does not require any dark energy or dark matter. In my model, expansion is due to actual motion of galaxy clusters; the clusters move away from a common center along spiraling paths at increasing speeds. The energy required comes from inside the clusters.

          You say that the universe may be spinning, an alternate idea. The question is how far have you developed it. Is it just on the idea level or have you at least completed an overall model of that spinning? I just started from such a simple idea. My model from particles to universe is now complete in all respects in an overall way. I can explain most of the prominent phenomena; I expect the rest will also be explainable. Whether it is correct or not, I leave it to the scientific community to decide.

          Jose p Koshy