Dear Avtar Singh,

thank you for reading and commenting and for your positive feedback.

I read your essay and left a comment on your page

Best regards,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear George Ellis,

thank you for having read my essay and for your positive feedback!

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

Thank you for excellent essay....

In your reply to Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 10, You also accepted you think it is an open universe.

In an open universe all the radiation emitted from Stars, Galaxies goes out of universe at the velocity of light. In your opinion where that radiation goes, will that not be a part of the universe ...?

Best

Snp.Gupta

    Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

    thank you for reading and commenting and for your question.

    Due to current physical theories, radiation that was produced in 3D space, remains in 3D space. Thhis should be the case whether space is infinite or finite. In the latter case, there are hindsights that the universe began as a 'big bang', space and time did emerge from some other process. Space expands in the far field of the universe with v > c, so that no light does ever reach a point where space does end.

    By 'open' i mean not the case that space does end 'somewhere' far out at the borders of our universe, but i mean that it is interwoven within another dimension, different from space and time. Again, hindsights are there for this in form of spontaneous particle creation / annihilation and the energy / time uncertainty relation. So, with 'open' it is meant another dimension, indicated by quantum mechanical processes measureable in our universe; the latter seems to be open in the sense that what we think as our universe isn't causally closed, but open. Surely, the latter also indicates that it is an open question what rules reside in this other dimension. Personally, i think these rules should have something to do with life, consciousness and intentionality.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #18

    Hi Stefan,

    I enjoyed reading your essay - I think you are getting at something important. I intend to read it a few more times.

    Dear Stefan Weckbach

    Thank you very much for reading my paper as well as your kind comments.

    I would appreciate it very much if you could please rate my paper.

    Best Regards

    Avtar

    Dear Stefan

    Thanks for your article that debates around the possibilities of meaning base information. From my observation the space is full of relations between 2 or more existents and the relation itself hold the potential action for each existent in he relation. Meaning based information exists when there is a possibility for at least one action to the relating Existants. If there is no potential for at least one action (conscious or unconscious) there is no relations between the existents. Causality works as a special case in the finitude life of the phenomenon. Causality does not evolve the phenomena in general. Therefore, reality is contingent and possible, and not predetermined. The forces of nature that we know works within the framework of the Phenomena but they are special cases where the relationship hold only one (even statistically) possible outcome. The selection of potential action from a range of potentials by a self organization depends on the actual State of the self organization and the attributes it has for its movements. I claim that a movement are not only the 3-4 measurable attributes we used in physics but rather 20 attributes that allow the self organization to be unique in its existence whether it is a grain of sand or a human being.

    Thanks again since I use the term of Operating meaning in my book: "generators theory", and I claim that the space is a composite of these natural language of operating meanings.

    Here, at FQXi contest, I wrote an article about the attributes of the movement without getting into the space of Operating Meaning. The essay name is: "we are together, therefore I am".

    thanks

    yehuda atai

      Stefan,

      Nicely written essay with some good, pertinent and interesting points well put. But before discussing content; the one part \I stumbled over- did you really mean; "circumscribed' as different.." and I'm no sure 'energetical' is actually a word!? I think I knew what you meant anyway as circumscribed may suggest 'enclosed together' while also different.

      On content, I found agreement with most, indeed our essays do have various commonalities. I agree; "The question arises in which sense nature should not be fully formalizable" but I suggest a rather more defined answer- which links to your interest in; interpretational questions about quantum mechanics I think and hope you may very much like and agree with my essay and will comment on it.

      One thing I'm not sure you really meant, and that my essay may show might now be challengable; "..couldn't deliver a coherent understanding of how goals and intentions can exist in a mindless physical universe." Do you suggest minds are not part of the universe? or did you really mean mindless mathematics?

      Thanks for a high quality essay anyway.

      Peter

        Hello Mr Weckbach,

        Congratulations for your relevant general reasoning.I liked how you have interpreted the origin of consciousness in comparating two main systems, tha main entropical cause God or the accidental logic appearing of this consciousness.It was a relevant reading.Personaly I have inserted in my model of spherisation, God with logic also.I need this infinite potential to encircle better the kinetic distribution of energy and motions.The codes and informations of evolution are a reality,like if all was coded and followed the quiet harmonical road of encodings and increasing mass.The consciousness for me is a result of evolution.Our brains are fascinating like results of evolution.We continue at each instant to encode informations, spheronic(gravitation)and photonic.I ask me if a number of matter,of particles is necessary for this consciousness,like in the brains,is it just correlated with biology?the real ask is there in fact ? If the consciousness is gravitationa and that electromagnetism is just a fuel for interactions, si it becomes intriguing considering the mind body soul problem.Ithe biology is necessary or not ?That is the question,how can we understand better what is this consciousness.It is not easy in fact.Personaly I beleive that an AI is possible but not a consciousness correlated with our gravitational soul in fact.It is a subtil difference.But of course we arrive at a philosophical interpretation and how we must interpret this infinite consciousness,entropy,this eternity fractalising in fact this infnite potential and creating lifes, with matter energy evolution on this entropical irreversible Arrow of time in fact, gravitationally and electromagnetically speaking.It is not easy in fact all this puzzle.We search to understand the words, the music, the laws, the codes and informations of this infinity simply.So simple this generality, so complex these détails ....I am wishing you all the best Mr Weckbach in this contest.Best from Belgioum

          Dear Yehuda Atai,

          thank you for reading and commenting.

          You mention that causality does not evolve the phenomena in general. I think you are right about this, otherwise one would end up with a picture i described in my essay. The question though is how unphysical causes are connected to physical stuff. Movement is important insofar as it indicates activity, even on the quantum level. Activity also seems to be an attribute of consciousness, although there are also states of consciousness where the latter seems to be totally passive.

          I'll take a look at your essay.

          Dear Peter,

          thank you for reading and commenting.

          You catched up with a version of my essay which i did alter in some details (accidentally FQXi uploaded the older version the first couple of days after posting the new one for eligibility) For a dualistic view of mind and matter, one needs two ingredients. First, one needs some commonalities and second, one needs some differences. I identify 'activity' as a commonality, i circumscribe it in physical terms as energetical vibrational patterns. I could have left out the term 'energetical', because 'vibrational' indicates activity, too. I define 'energy' as the potential to transform a potentiality into a factuality. This means that the world isn't fully determined by mechanical causes and effects. I stumbled over an interesting approach to systematizise these lines of thought in physical terms by a researcher named Joachim Keppler. The reference to his work can be found in Avtar Singh's essay, if you are interested in it.

          With mindless universe i mean the widespread belief that the universe came into existence (or forever existed) without a higher purpose and our minds and insights into nature's lawfullness are somewhat just an accident, a random fluctuation. I do not belief this scenario, but naturally it is hard to disprove it rigorously.

          Thank you for your kind words and best wishes for your own attempt in the contest!

          Dear Steve,

          thank you very much for reading and commenting.

          I hope you are well and i am happy that you participate in the discussions on FQXi. Yes, i too argue for a higher purpose of existence and i think spacetime isn't all there is, same with physical systems. This does not imply that God is a nonphysical 'system', although i define the term God to be surely a nonphysical entity by the very means of its definition and of the definition of consciousness. I wished you would elaborate your model into an essay, so we could discuss commonalities and differences better. I think that spheres are important, they are not only archetypical forms, but for me, they also have archetypical content. For example the number Pi, defined as the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a sphere nicely combines linear and circular features, leading to a number sequence which is statistically normal (random), but at the same time precisely calculatable. I do not think that the digit before the decimal point is 'random', the '3.' is in my opinion an expression of the intricate link of a unity and its possibility to split it in two seemingly symmetrical parts by the diameter. Nonetheless the circle remains a unity, a unity with two complementary parts of it, resulting in a threesome composition. Think of the many threesome collections in nature: 3 spatial dimensions, 3 qualities of time (past, present, future), 3 classical states of matter, 3 generations of fermions, 3 components of atoms (electrons, neutrons, positrons), 3 color charges of gluons, 3 sentential connectives of propositional logics (not, or, and), 3 categories of classical metamathematics (completeness, consistence, decidability).

          Wish you some further exciting readings of the essays and may the relevant solutions and insights come to you as a surprise and a gift!

          You are Welcome Mr Weckbach,

          and I am thanking you also.I am a little better since the problems in belgium and death of my mom.I was very weak psychologically speaking.I try to evolve.

          About phsycis,your line of reasoning is general and relevant.I love indeed to read this contest.The essays this year are very relevant.It is a real pleasure because I learn in the same time.

          Your classifications are very interesting.I hadn't never nthought about this 3 ,this prime also.I discussed in private with Mr Duplij on linkedin about padics numbers and the rankings.It is a big puzzle all this.I like a lot this 3 ,the completeness,the consistence and the decidability.Many convergences could appear with the geometrical algeberas and fractalisations of our 3D S3.I search the good method with the spherical geometrical algebras.I try to find a road to see the serie of uniquenss with the spherical volumes.The rankings and classifications are important indeed, it is foundamental.For the encodings of évolution with photons and particles of gravitation,your classifications seems important.I beleive that if the quantum BHs and particles of gravitation(i named them the spherons produced by BHs and in the cold)encircle our standard model, we have 3 also, the quantum BHs with stronger forces than our gluonic nuclear forces and spherons them encoded weaker than electromagentism and photons.See that we have the main codes ,gravitational due to these quant BHs ,the thermo due to our standard model with electromagnetic forces,and the spherons informations of gravitation, 3 main systems permitting the equilibrium between heat and cold.The mind body soul problem also is solved when we consider this system.We die electromagnetically, not gravitationally in logic,intriguing these central sphères, these quantum singularities turning around this cosm singularity.The works of Mr Tegmark at this moment intrigues me because if we have a multispheres, so our central sphere is not the cosm singularity but a big BH which turns around the real cosmological uniqueness.It is intriguing considering the spherical volume implying the gravitational aether.The weak rotation of these centers implies the intrinsic laws of each universe, here for ours c,h ,alpha, G....but not for the others .....It is relevant.

          I am wishing you all the best in this contest, your generalities merit very good points,good luck from belgium,small country ,big heart :)

          Thank you Stefan,

          Your words... "..By 'open' i mean not the case that space does end 'somewhere' far out at the borders of our universe, but i mean that it is interwoven within another dimension, different from space and time. Again, hindsights are there for this in form of spontaneous particle creation / annihilation and the energy / time uncertainty relation. So, with 'open' it is meant another dimension, indicated by quantum mechanical processes measureable in our universe"... are good explanation.

          Why do you want to use imaginary dimensions? Three space dimensions and one time dimension are sufficient to explain all the anomalies...........

          Please use Dynamic Universe Model, no imagination...

          ..........No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

          I got many results published...

          Have a look at:

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/10-feb-201-6-all-my-published-papers.html

          Best Regards

          =snp

          Thank you Stefan,

          Your words... "..By 'open' i mean not the case that space does end 'somewhere' far out at the borders of our universe, but i mean that it is interwoven within another dimension, different from space and time. Again, hindsights are there for this in form of spontaneous particle creation / annihilation and the energy / time uncertainty relation. So, with 'open' it is meant another dimension, indicated by quantum mechanical processes measureable in our universe"... are good explanation.

          Why do you want to use imaginary dimensions? Three space dimensions and one time dimension are sufficient to explain all the anomalies...........

          Please use Dynamic Universe Model, no imagination...

          ..........No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

          I got many results published...

          Have a look at:

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/10-feb-201-6-all-my-published-papers.html

          Best Regards

          =snp

          Thank you Stefan,

          Your words... "..By 'open' i mean not the case that space does end 'somewhere' far out at the borders of our universe, but i mean that it is interwoven within another dimension, different from space and time. Again, hindsights are there for this in form of spontaneous particle creation / annihilation and the energy / time uncertainty relation. So, with 'open' it is meant another dimension, indicated by quantum mechanical processes measureable in our universe"... are good explanation.

          Why do you want to use imaginary dimensions? Three space dimensions and one time dimension are sufficient to explain all the anomalies...........

          Please use Dynamic Universe Model, no imagination...

          ..........No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

          I got many results published...

          Have a look at:

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/10-feb-201-6-all-my-published-papers.html

          Best Regards

          Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

          thank you for your reply. I cannot comment on the many issues you raise because i am not an expert on such many fields. The question for me is how consciousness fits into the bigger picture of logically derivable results in science. Is it logical that inanimate matter should be able to produce 'res cogitans', as Descartes put it? The universe may be finite or infinite, it may be eternal or finite in time, on a logical basis something should be accountable for what the universe is and isn't. In my essay i presuppose that the accountable part cannot be within the universe, even if the universe does somehow 'cause' itself (for example by recycling itself).

          That consciousness in a purely mechanistical universe should be possible is nearly a wonder, but that this consciousness should, as time goes by, be able to also understand the universe seems to me a slightly unprobable coincidence. I think the fact that we are able to understand so much about the universe and the fact that the same universe allows consciousness to exist to do that points to some teleological explanation. The universe is not a random mash of events, the latter are ordered and in realtionship with each other (despite the fact of quantum mechanical indeterminacy). The latter, the QM indeterminacy points to the outer regions of spacetime reality, its gauze gets frayed there everytime we test it. This leads me to conclude that spacetime is a secondary reality, emerged on the basis of something other than spacetime alone.

          I will have a look at your essay, but cannot guarantee that i understand all the conclusions you make in it.

          Stefan,

          When I was a child, the church told me that science cannot prove or disprove God. May I ask you what consequences are to be derived? When the pope was asked for his opinion concerning uncontrolled limitless growth of population, he just expressed his hope for responsible parentship. Do people, who voted for Trump and Brexit, need to understand your message that the enigma of endless space can be resolved by believing in an additional dimension, a modern sort of heaven outside the sky?

          I respect your attitude although mine is different.

          Eckard

            Dear Eckard Blumschein,

            good questions. Firstly, i am not convinced that the pope is an authority choosen by God. Secondly, i think that believing in God is not the point, but acting as if he would exist. Surely, for me, i claim that such an entity does exist, but it should make a difference then how i impart my values. We all know that acting according to the golden rule could make the world a better place. This is also a message from near-death experiencers. Another message is 'learning', respectively 'education'. Overpopulation is a problem, indeed. I do not know in detail the reasons why there are so many people on the planet, it may have to do with the lack of prevention of pregnancy, but there are surely other reasons as well like having offspring which can fend for oneself if one gets old. If it is also due to some statements of popes, then I would say they are wrong with it.

            Back to education. We live in a system (at least in the western world) where a person is evaluated by his/her manpower and/or his/her money. The system has accumulated gigantic amounts of wealth in very few person's accounts - by all sorts of trickery. There's a famous saying in the banking scence that goes 'you will hold them dense, i will hold them poor'. Our educational systems, our advertising, our addictions of consumption, our fear to be excluded when we don't please the mainstream and its 'Zeitgeist' makes us prisoners and are the tools by which a few individuals make most people dense and poor. Maybe these people are those who voted for Trump and the Brexit, but not necessarily. Look, we have 2017 now, the financial crisis began 2007. What has the world learned from it? Does a majority of people even know that there are 700 Billion dollar on CDO contracts out there? Don't blame God or the non-existence of God for all this, humanity has overslept to invest in true education. By the latter i don't mean education for some job, but education of the heart. In the western hemisphere, people go to work and then amuse themselves, a majority without ever thinking about philosophical or religious things, about how it is that they are here and where they probably go when they die.

            There are no easy answers to these questions, but i think every human being should have thought about it once in a lifetime and should have searched for an answer without being biased by modern science. Who does regularily read books which are concerned with those questions? I would assume that most people are occupied with the trash on their handies or with cheap trash at the TV. Therefore i do not expect the majority of people to even understand what i have written in my essay or that they know of Gödel or some interpretations of quantum mechanics or about modern cosmology. But this isn't a tragedy. The Tragedy is that modern science behaves like it is almighty. That's the picture purported by science itself and by several magazines and tons of books - and most people believe it *without thinking for themselves*. They believe that science can know (or indeed does already know) all things and solve all problems. Think for yourself whether or not science can solve all problems. Personally, i think believing this would be extraordinarily naïve. Not until it is too late people will recognize that they believed in a false God, in an idol, and to be honest to you, there are so many false Gods out there, from money, science, fame, to personal potency. We live in an age of abuse, everybody misuses everybody (under the cloak of political correctness) and it is no wonder for me that individuals like Trump or others gain influence. As long as science does communicate that it has all the ultimate answers (although it doesn't have them), you will see the ever same scenario of seducers giving the dense audience what it wants to hear / to read.

            Dear Eckard Blumschein, i critizise science for its omnipotent behaviour, but the latter isn't exclusively reserved for science, but an attribute of mankind in general. I know that some people do not like what they read here, but should i renounce my values just for some guys giving me some more points for my essay? I would be no better than the dense people i spoke of. Recognition of what i wrote will come or don't come, and i do not expect it to come easy, for it is not the short success, but remaining values i search for. If you want people that have voted or not voted for Trump to be more intelligent, you should always admit the truth and the truth is that we both do not know if a God does indeed exist. It is a matter of belief, personal experience and of believing that certain aspects of science and other phenomenologies support such a worldview. So for people which lack the experience i spoke of in the last sentence: do not claim what you don't know for sure and the world will be a slightly less confused place. Maybe it is too late to turn mankind into an overall intelligent community, but if true, this has nothing to do with God, it is then our fault. Therefore we as intelligent beings should begin here and now, every day. This is the minimum of what can be expected from people who are termed by FQXi as top thinkers in foundational questions.