Dear Jose,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating.

You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.

I share your aspiration to seek the truth

«All physical structures including living organisms are manifestations inside the Cosmos, and cannot exist outside.»

«Life is an emergent property acquired by mid-level structures formed by atoms.»

«The temperature difference between the two makes the heat engine work.»

«In addition to these, the emergent properties acquired by the intermediate structures create both bottom-up and top-down causal factors at each level.»

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

    Vladimir,

    Thank you for the comments. I have tried to answer the question put forth by FQXI. However, my answer is based on an alternate theory, 'The Finiteness Theory' (proposed by me) the details of which are available at Vixra.org. In my opinion, the main-stream scientists have not tried to identify the top-down causal factor that exists in the universe.

    FQXI offers a platform where alternate ideas can be discussed. I view it as 'participation' on our part, and 'contest' on the part of FQXI.

    Jose P Koshy

    Jose,

    Very interesting, if a little speculative in areas. I agree some parts are reasonable including;

    "..it may be possible that the machines we create acquire self-awareness; but at the end, it may turn out that what we have done is just a duplication of the natural process." and;

    "The Cosmos, .. goes through an infinite loop of pulsations" Which agree with a cyclic cosmology theory I've presented with much consistent evidence, also that we may well be around half way through a cycle. (do ask for links on my string if interested).

    Sadly alternate ideas aren't as well received as they should be, so quite rigorous comprehensive and even and conclusive evidence is required and even then it may not even be looked at!

    I hope you may read mine this year, but in that bracket!

    Good effort. Very Best

    Peter

      Hi dear Jose

      Your essay is very impressive by realistic approaches to problems in the whole. It is seen there clearly definitions of used concepts and categories by their meaning, role and significance, which must to be as mandatory in the scientific - research works, if we really expecting get some valuable results. Unfortunately, such lawful demands become now somewhat forgotten in present formal - mathematical methodology (I mean post classical physics.) Moreover, in your work are presented large circle of very interesting and intriguing questions such, concerning to cosmology, to quantum-classical contradictions etc. Your views on this questions deserve attention and more time that we now has. However, I can decide for myself that author of this work are one deeply thinking person who well imagine the examined subject. The main thing for me it is your critical approach to studied theme.

      I hope my work can serve to your attention and I can hearing some your words in my page.

      Best Regards

        Peter Jackson,

        The present accepted models are the best available, even though incomplete. That is why alternate concepts are not well received by the community. Again that makes the effort for alternate ideas more luring. But unfortunately most of the alternate models are no match for the present ones. Let us try to make our arguments as pereect as possible that no body can ignore it. I will go through your essay. I am interested to know more about your model especially because you claim 'consistent evidence'.

        Jose P Koshy

        George Kirakosyan,

        Thank you for the comment. My approach is classical Newtonian with some corrections. The present approach is mathematics oriented, and the fact that 'physics is not mathematics' is often forgotten. I will go through your essay and will come up with my opinion within a few days.

        Jose P Koshy

        Write a Reply...