Sorry when I would say deontological I have bad translated I have said like in french,the good word is ethical.Sorry for my English.

The question at hand: mathematical basis to aims and intention. The author does a good job at putting on the table all the elements that might contribute an answer to the question in one way or another. He does not provide however any particular answer or solution of his own to the problem. An essay generally well written.

Your brilliant essay is actually a future research program and scientific compilation for a physics of consciousness, Mr. Brown. Concerning your questions at the end of the text, I would like to point to the Hebrew sages which imply that the 'ten sayings of creation' (the Memra in Aramaic) were 10 vibrations which comes close to 'cosmic music'. Rashi pointed to the fact that Bereshit starts with a decisive grammatical part missing, i.e. we are not being told of which beginning we learn. Consequently, the physics of the (human-animal) mind is indeed a new frontier of science. Best: stephen i. ternyik

    Hello Mr Ternyik,

    Fascinating these cosmic music, they turn so they are these sphères :) could you tell us more please ,I am passionated by this infinite entropy above our physicality.God does not play at dices like said Einstein.What are the ten sayings of creation?

    Regards

    Mr. Dufourny, please look for my responde at your LinkedIn account. Best: S.Ternyik

    A cornucopia of interesting-ness. I too think Wolfram's cellular automata have interesting things to show and "tell".

    11 days later

    Hi David,

    I felt like a boxer's speed-bag while reading your essay. You raise so many good questions and the quotations were sharp edged. There seemed to be a deeper current in your piece, but it felt as though it was meant for someone other than myself. Would like to have had more of your own thoughts made explicit.

    Best, Don

      Most of my thoughts are errors or minor extrapolations of other people's thoughts. My guess is that Ray Kurzweil is the world's greatest living genius. (Google "ray kurzweil" for more information.) My guess is that the world's 3 greatest living scientists are James D. Watson, Sydney Brenner, and M. Milgrom. For my thoughts on Milgrom's MOND, google "vixra david brown".

      Can anyone think of a physical meaning for the following?

      196883^(8 + 1/(4 *5) + 1/(32 * 125) + 1/(256 * 3125)) = 4.165875883 * 10^42 (approximately)?

      From my publication "Einstein's Field Equations: 3 Criticisms" (vixra.org): "...

      I suggest that there might be 3 possible modifications of Einstein's field equations. Consider Einstein's field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) -- what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant) * g(mu,nu) * R * (1 - (R(min) / R)^2)^(1/2) = - κ * (T(mu,nu) / equivalence-principle-failure-factor) - Λ * g(mu,nu), where equivalence-principle-failure-factor = (1 - (T(mu,nu)/T(max))^2)^(1/2) -- if dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, R(min) = 0, and T(max) = +∞ then Einstein's field equations are recovered. .... Our universe was born 13.82 billion years ago. It would have expanded forever in the dark energy and inflationary mode of Newton and Einstein, but for the fact, noticed by Milgrom, that Newton and Einstein were not quite right. Gravitons, unlike photons, gluons, and all other fundamental particles, can sometimes escape from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. This process of escape, appearing as dark energy, causes a slight excess of gravitational red shift known as dark matter and a slight excess of flattening in spacetime known as Milgromian inflation. Thus our universe expands, collapses in one Planck time interval and is reborn every 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years."

      David,

      Seems to reveal a script of the inscrutable, the unfathomable, the mysterious: The universe: something from nothing; Life from non-life and mindfulness arising from mindless mathematical laws. Not sure about the relevance of Milgromian Cosmology accounting for no dark matter in your mix. Wolframian computing and universal meaning?

      Your essay does make one think though. I have some of the same script.

      Jim Hoover

        For more information, google "mcgaugh dark matter", "mcgaugh dark matter youtube", "kroupa dark matter", "kroupa dark matter youtube", "wolfram automaton", and "david brown vixra".

        Dear Brown,

        You have written a fine essay.

        As you mentioned Milgromian Cosmology in the title of your essay (though I did not find any discussion about it), I want to say few words about it before we go further into your essay. This Milgromian cosmology uses different types of formulae just to explain Galaxy rotation curves. These formulae cannot be used anywhere else. The main problem they faced is Dark matter was not detected experimentally.

        Just for comparison sake let me tell you about Dynamic Universe Model. This uses its SAME set of singularity free equations at Micro particle level, Solar system level, Milky way level or Universe level... No change. This model predicted that there is no Dark matter and came true after 9 years. This model says no Dark energy, no Blackholes, No Bigbang etc... This model's prediction of existence of blue shifted Galaxies came true after 10 years through HST. There were many results including VLBI, Pioneer anomaly etc. For your information Bigbang based cosmologies use 40 percent of Galaxies in the Universe. Remaining are neglected.

        Your discussions on popular science books is very good. The Wolframian Computing did not become popular somehow. It is probably non availability of higher level popular programs ,

        You raised the real good question of experimental Consciousness...

        Thank you for the nice essay...

          4 days later

          Does deterministic string theory work because the monster group represents bosonic string theory and because the interactions of the monster group with the 6 pariah groups allow the interactions of bosons, leptons, and quarks to be modeled?

          Are there 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups?

          Can anyone think of a physical meaning for the following?

          196883^(8 1/(4 * 5) 1/(32 * 125) 1/(256 * 3125)) = 4.165875883 * 10^42 (approximately)

          (coulomb's constant) * (electron charge)^2 / ((newton's constant) * (electron mass)^2) =

          4.166 * 10^42 (approximately)

          196883^8 = 2.25769747 * 10^42 (approximately)

          Hypothesis:

          196833 is related to a Lie group representation of the monster group. The factor 8 arises because the eight 3-tuples (u,u,u), (u,u,d), (u,d,u), (d,u,u), (d,d,d), (d,d,u), (d,u,d), (u,d,d) represent up quarks and down quarks interacting with bosonic string theory.

          Google "monstrous moonshine" for more information.

          I predict that Milgrom will win the Nobel Prize within 5 years.

          I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

          (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provided the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

          (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

          (3) Lestone's heuristic string theory is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

          Is gravitational energy conserved in terms of the Newtonian approximation? It might or might not be conserved -- physicists should study the empirical evidence.

          Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" is the best book that I have ever read. On page 107 of that book, Crick wrote, "What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way." I believe that the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is just such a striking result. I believe that Milgrom's MOND will connect astrophysics and string theory in a profound way.

          Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that astronomical time might be different from atomic time. I suggest that astronomical time is definitely different from atomic time. I suggest that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Am I merely a crackpot? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

            There is a typo in the previous position -- "MOND will provided" should be "MOND will provide".

            If MOND, were empirically invalid then there is no way whatsoever that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa.

            http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/burn1.html "Why Consider MOND?" by S. McGaugh

            https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.html "Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress"

            One possibility that might prove that I am a crackpot is the existence of MOND-chameleon particles -- these hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. Another fatal blow could be the success of a Bekenstein-type theory that could explain MOND but still maintain conservation of gravitational energy in terms of the Newtonian approximation.

            I believe that contemporary physicists suffer from the belief that gravitational energy is conserved in terms of the Newtonian approximation. It might or might not be conserved -- the empirical evidence determines scientific truth.

            Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" is the best book that I have ever read. On page 107 of that book, Crick wrote, "What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way." I believe that the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is just such a striking result. I believe that Milgrom's MOND will connect astrophysics and string theory in a profound way.

            Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that astronomical time might be different from atomic time. I suggest that astronomical time is definitely different from atomic time and that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Am I merely a crackpot? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

            I conjecture that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry.

            Sorry about repetition in preceding post.

            If dark energy obeys the equivalence principle, then does dark energy have negative inertial mass-energy?

            Consider the following 2 conjectures:

            (1) Dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.

            (2) Dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.

            Can physicists site empirical evidence that disconfirms the preceding 2 conjectures?

            Consider 4 more conjectures (A), (B), (C), and (D):

            (A) The equivalence principle fails at the Planck scale if and only if leptons and quarks have structure at the Planck scale.

            (B) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that the equivalence principle fails at the Planck scale.

            (C) If the universe expands forever, then string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is false, and, consequently, 't Hooft's deterministic string theory is likely to be false.

            (D) If the universe does not expand forever, then a scaling factor involving R should be incorporated into Einstein's field equations.

            Should physicists think carefully about the preceding 6 conjectures?

            Why might the Koide formula be essential for understanding the foundations of physics?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

            According to the conventional wisdom, dark matter certainly has positive gravitational mass-energy and positive inertial mass-energy and obeys the equivalence principle -- presumably because Einstein's field equations are true. However, note that I have suggested 3 corrections to Einstein's field equations: one for MOND, one for the Koide formula, and one for Lestone's heuristic string theory. Consider this idea: mass-energy can be converted into space-time. Write square-root(mass) = Koide-constant * area. What might this mean? Mass-energy of big bang = (Koide-Constant)^2 * (volume of spacetime at time of maximum expansion of the universe) * (81.6 ± 1.7 billion years) *c, where c is the speed of light in vacuo. Can astrophysicists explain the space roar? Does the space roar suggest the validity of the Koide formula (as NOT merely a coincidence)?

            Does Milgrom's MOND suggest a modification to Einstein's field equations?

            My idea is that dark matter has positive gravitational energy and zero inertial mass energy -- this means replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.

            How many astrophysicists have looked at the following?

            http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0186 "Where Are the Dark Matter Particles?"

            Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

            David

            Great essay. Certainly one of the best here. Well set out, written and argued, though it helps that I agree most of your arguments and (though more limited!) conclusions. A few specifics.

            1. I like & agree your 4 trumps, (though I suspect we'll find one Trump may be enough!)

            2. Thanks for the Crick quote. I'll get the book. I certainly agree in my own essay; All approaches at a higher level are suspect until confirmed at the molecular level indeed I suggest the next step or even two below molecular level.

            3. I also than answer YES, that; consciousness reduces to molecular psychology reduces to molecular biology reduces to chemistry reduces to physics if not quite to present doctrines of physics!

            I'm not a mathematician, so it's a pleasant surprise to find so much agreement. However from the observational cosmology view I seem to have identified apparently slightly more logically complete options than I understand (maybe only a little) Milgromian cosmology gives. Consistent derivations of dark matter, energy, gravity and cosmic redshift (without needing accelerating expansion) emerge (I've published papers if you're interested).

            I'd like to go into that further but best stick to the essays for now. I'd love a mathematicians view or even promise of input into my own logic.

            Best of luck in the contest.

            Peter

              Peter Jackson: Your essay's abstract begins with "Artificial intelligence can already learn..." and ends with "No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our own or any universe." I doubt the existence of miracles, immortal souls, and/or supernatural entities -- but do we really have convincing evidence that miracles do not occur in the Andromeda Galaxy? Can we really be sure that human consciousness is not merely a simulation in a higher being's computer game? As to AI learning, where might it end?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

              From the following list of physicists, I would vote for Steven Weinberg as the best role model for aspiring theoretical physicists.

              http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/who_todays_einstein_exercise_ranking_scientists-75928

              -- D. Brown