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

            I want to elaborate on some of my conjectures. Consider 7 conjectures:

            (1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group, i.e., time exists because of the symmetries associated with the embedding of the Sylow 2-subgroup of the monster group.

            (2) Space exists because 3^20 divides he order of the monster group, i.e., space exists because of the symmetries associated with the embedding of the Sylow 3-subgroup of the monster group.

            (3) There are 3 generations of fermions because 13^3 divides the order of the monster group.

            (4) Time and antimatter-time exist because 11^2 divides the order of the monster group, thus allowing Witten's 11-dimenstional model to govern the interactions of bosons, leptons, and quarks; these interactions can be mathematically described by the interactions of the monster group and the 6 pariah groups.

            (5) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.

            (6) If G is a finite group, then define Lie-group(G) to be the Lie group associated with the minimal Lie group representation of G. There exists a system of information transfer associated with Lie-group(monster group), and Lie-group(5-Sylow subgroup of the monster group) and the Lie-group (...) associated with the 6 pariah groups and their associated 5-Sylow subgroups.

            (7) The reason that 7^6 divides the order of the monster group is that each of the 6 basic quarks has a 3-dimensional linear momentum, a 3-dimensional angular momentum, and quantum spin.

            Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Google "witten milgrom" and "kroupa milgrom" for more information.

              Hello,

              It is relevant considering the ranking of groups.Have you already thought about the padics numbers and the groups and the morphisms.I beleive that an extension of quaternions could be relevant inj superimposing the vectors, scalrs in converging with the spherical volumes.If the quantum BHs and BHs are correlated with this matter not baryonic implying gravitation with the cold so we have a road to better understand the scales and correlated laws.The works of Clifford or Hopf also could help.I beleive strongly that the spherical volumes are essential.The points are well but we can imrpove the détails with the 3 motions of these spherical volumes.The sortings and synchros appear when we consider also the senses of rotations and angles.The good reccurent method can be found.The aim being to understand better this infinite gravitational potential energy and this kinetic énergies distributed if In can say in a simplistic point of vue.I beleive that the groups can be found,me I am a nursery manI have not the skillings for simulations,but if somebody can try several methods by simulations, it could be very relevant.They turn so they are after all these sphères.Regards

              Steve Dufourny: "... an extension of quaternions could be relevant ..." It seems plausible that both quaternions and octonions could be relevant -- if there are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups ... (not yet well-formulated).

              https://books.google.com/books?id=irt7nOFaR3sC "Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields" by Stephen L. Adler, 1995

              Sepunaru, Daniel. "On Hypercomplex Extensions of Quantum Theory." arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.05853 (2015).

              In my previous post there is the typo "... 3^20 divides he order ..."

              I would like to try to explain some of the backstory of my essay. In Tahiti, Paul Gauguin painted his famous masterpiece (oil on canvas) now known as "D'où Venons Nous/Que Sommes Nous/Où Allons Nous" (Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?). Gauguin's 3 questions are indeed important. There might be a kind of fatal paradox in science -- to fully answer many scientific questions, superhuman intelligence might be required. Thus, the ongoing progress of science and technology might entail the downfall of the human species -- what Ray Kurzweil, a supreme optimist, calls the "Singularity". Is Darwinian evolution brutal, extravagant, wasteful, relentless, and inevitable? Will superhuman beings treat human beings with benevolence and solicitude? What is the fundamental Darwinian trend of consciousness? What is consciousness? Specifically, what might be a mathematical model or computer simulation of visual consciousness in primates? Would a full answer to the preceding question require superhuman intelligence?

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXGZ3euhq4g History of Neuroscience: Francis Crick, YouTube, 2012

              Is the science of human consciousness necessary for understanding who we are? Where are we going? Where is our universe going? Where did the big bang come from? My guess is that the empirically valid answers to the 2 preceding questions require 3 distinct modifications to Einstein's field equations. (Google "einstein's field equations 3 criticisms" for more information on my guesses.