Shokran Vladimir,

Now I understand that you really has an artist's soul.

I also understand that for you it is more important human attitude than other things! So, we can talk long and to say many nice things each to other, but let me just stop on two your remarks. 1. On scientists - protestants. Yes, there are unbelievable number of oppositions in present physics, who are under global pressing of "official science." And no need go so far to find them, my friend - we can find someone right here! I mean Eugeny Klingman, for example, who goes now on the top. God help to him (but I have doubt!) we will see! You can find many of them, using google even.

2. About role of Einstein: There are 3 Einstein for me; early, medium and last. First one is what you say. The second one was who already get huge success (by some specific way for known to you kind of people.) But for us it must be more important a third Einstein, when he have understand that he has done many wrong things then he tried to catch shaitan and put again in the bottle ... but it was already out of his power! THEY had say him - thank you "habibi" what you have done, but now you must go away ... and he become one very tragic person, to end of his life!

Be well, my friend.

George,

Well done. You deliberately and logically present the essentials for the right aims and intents of the conscious mind of the observer. Good process analysis. Like the independent thinkers of old, we must ignore politicization and bias of the times and utilize natural law.

Depending on the frame of observation, my highly speculative hypothesis about dark matter, needs the ideal observer who depends on galactic field studies to see if dark matter is not an independent field like most DM scientists are prone to believe but possible one generated by the galactic motions and forces of gravity, EM, and the strong and weak force all in tandem.

It is only a thought experiment, maybe in the vein of Einstein, but one that is out of the box -- somewhat in your thought train. You provide important steps for agency and intent.

Hope you can check out my essay and provide your thoughts.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

    Dear James,

    Thank you for attention on my work. I appreciate your support!

    Coming to your essay I will just emphasize some points that you says: "Such laws are not mindless ..." Then you says "they not dictate the aim ...". This almost is enough to me to understand your vision on the contest question. Then you goes a little on side and you linked the aim with the entropy. This I can welcome only (I think not me only!) because the connection of the entropy with system organisation it should be obvious to everybody. And, the purposefulness cannot be without organisation. So, this also is nice!

    But let me just tell you friendly that I am a little bit sceptical to dark matter. If you will ask my advice here then I will say - It will better to wait until we understand the physical essence of gravity phenomena, the elementary particles etc. I mean, it maybe that time we just will see that the ''dark matter" becomes not so necessary!

    And, in the common sense your essay are one of nice works in the contest. So, I can wish you success only!

    Best regards

    The FQXi is a very social oriented group. The thing you disagree with is the social rating type of group. The majority of folks in this contest don't even address the stated task. (I think only 3 perhaps 4). I like it because in past years there have been a few points I find interesting. The group generally dislikes my ideas. Because they are so different from the status quo. I've had many tell me (usually with some indignation ) over the years that what I write is not in the accepted social way. (See Schmitz comment in my essay). So the characteristic You don't like is in the social group mentality. I agree but the real situation is slghtly different. The Powers that Be want to stay the Powers that Be and ideas that chalange their learning means they would have to relearn and loose power (to approve papers) and social standing.

    I suggest you are correct to examine the Galileo vs. Roman Catholic Church interaction. But your view is science viewpoint mythology. A few Popes before Galileo, the Church was in competition with the Islamic world and loosing badly. The Ottoman empire was in Europe and they were helping fund the Protestents. The Moors were in Spain and had invaded France. The islamic world was more tolerant (for exmple: the elete troops were Christins -Janisaries- who could become prime minister) So the pope decided to become more tolerant. And it worked - The Ottoman were repulsed, trqde boomed, science made great advances. However, the Moors had run their course and were decaying from the inside . But the rulers in spain made big deal of defeting the moors ( a falsehood). The rulers then asked Rome for a special type of law (inquisition) known as the Spainish inquisition which was extremely intolerant. From rome's pespective it looked like intolerance was the way to go.

    So, Rome cracked down on all who incorrectly thought different than the accepted science. Here's where it gets tricky. Copernicus published his book with the Churches permission and approval. The person he asked to publish it was protestant and changed the wording to suggest it was simply a means to calculate the days and not a suggestion as to the truth (belief was a Church province). So, if a person (Galileo) wanted to believe he had but to present observations to the Church that were observable - a science criteria today. Galileo did this for the moons of Jupiter. The Copernican idea was accepted by the Church as a calculating means for a particularly thorny problem for the Church - on what day should various celebrations be celebrated and how to coordinate them across Europe (Ptolemaic method was very difficult).

    As soon as some (Galileo and others) started to BELIEVE, they crossed into Church territory. Especially because the data/observations DID NOT support Copernicus. Galileo himself attempted to find parallax in the stars as Copernicus suggested - Ptolemy said no parallax. Galileo apparently suppressed his null measurement. So sun centered was total belief not science. This is a problem with null measurement such as the Michelson-Morley. The concept of precision was little understood in Galileo's time. The value was below the instruments ability to measure. The parallax was finely measured in the 1830s. and Copernicus accepted. So the Church was acting scientifically as you seem to be suggesting except in the tolerance to let others think (publish).

    So what criteria should there be for publishing. The status quo (like seen in the FQXi) even rejects data, explanation of observations mathematically, and prediction of observations on don't rock the boat criteria not correctness criteria. The Church wanted the ideas to be observable - Which Galileo didn't do.

    Hodge

    Dear George Kirakosyan,

    The speed of light in vacuum is constant relative to 'Space' itself, instead of relative to a material object. Therefore, the speed of electromagnetic wave is not only a speed but also a fundamental property of nature, which can be a key property to generate gravitational and inertial forces.

    With Best Regards,

    Ch.Bayarsaikhan

      Dear Bayarsaikhan

      Yes, I agree that //The speed of light in vacuum is constant// However, on //relative to 'Space' itself, instead of relative to a material object// it is not so unequivocally as this seems. Particularly, from this imagination has been arisen the existence of ether or (absolute system of measurement) that breaks Galilean relativity principle. This theme is large to start discuss it right here.

      Check please in my article (in Refs) What I need to say It is there. I cannot say you will accept with me, but I do not have other answer. I already have evaluated (and criticized also) your work earlier (see my previous comment)

      Let my wish you success!

      Dear George,

      you asked me to comment here. Obviously you have interpreted the theme of the contest in a very different way than me. (The topic was broad!) Thus, I'm not sure if can add very much to your analysis. But let my try to point you to a few places, risking that it's not all that new to you. First, given your general remarks about politics and sociology within the scientific community, you might enjoy the classic books "Against Method" and "Science in a Free Society" by Paul Feyerabend. Second, I believe that if the moon is there when I look at it, then it is also there when I don't look. There are realistic theories which can be used instead of (standard) quantum mechanics, the best-known being De Broglie-Bohm theory (same predictions as quantum mechanics). Finally, I have lots of sympathy for viewing mathematics as a tool created to do physics although there are areas of mathematics for which some people might argue otherwise.

      Cheers, Stefan

      Hi Gevorg,

      The scope of this contest is vast for several reasons. For one, interpretation of the challenge is dependent on each person's own understanding of several terms in the question; this alone has the effect of presenting hundreds of questions. And the added challenge to avoid our pet notions and (WHAT?) go with politically recognized but conflicting concepts while addressing a very basic question.

      I enjoyed your presentation and commiserate with your angst pertaining to the opportunity the scientific community has lost in the last hundred years. But, even with this loss, it seems that science, math, and technology have evolved much faster than common sense concerns like morals, ethics, politics, and religion.

      Sherman

      Sherman,

      I opened your opus and I seen there are written: //Author Bio// and such a text under that chapter:

      //Question geometry, numbers "dark and light." How to ask and answer. "How does sun light make shadows?" Seeing our home and garage at (36.933804, -93.055313) one can imagine what this question was for me ....//!!!

      Then it become for my very difficult to imagine anything! Thus, I have seen that it will too difficult to continue ....

      I just would to understand - Sorry, to what purpose you are here?

      Maybe it will more right directed this question to FQXi administration?

      Hi,

      Thank you for looking at my paper and commenting.

      I like your paper. To me, there are valid criticisms of the way that science is happening now. Perhaps it belongs in a sociology of science journal. I agree with you about math being man-made. My paper pushes this also.

      All the best,

      Noson

        Thank you dear professor, for answering my post and favorable words on my work. This important for me as a opinion of one deeply thinker specialist. Unfortunately our approach on the role and significance of math are some different from opinions of many important bosses in present science. However, we can thinking as we see it correct.

        Maybe I have not enough level to say this, but I think your clear approchement to a relation between facts with math may induce a lot of perspectives .. and I am going now to rate your work!

        Best regards

        Dear George,

        Your essay is very interesting and has given me much food for thought. I must admit that I must do some more research to understand some of problems in the way modern science is done, that you have pointed out. I will say that I agree that the role of the observer is of utmost importance and we need to have extremely clear definitions of such an observer's capacities and capabilities. I thank you for your discussions on that. Your work has been a good read. Good luck on the contest.

        Cheers

        Natesh

        Dear George,

        Your essay has been for me a very informative and useful reading, because it raises many questions about the current state of scientific research and offers insight on the uneasy relations between the "official" science and the independent research. I am not a physicist or a mathematician and I certainly cannot evaluate to what extent the situation of the current paradigms of these two sciences is lacking. However, I share with you the view that the nature of fundamental particles has not yet been clarified (and the frequent discovery of new more and more evanescent particles does not improve the situation) and that the relationship between mathematics and reality should be reconsidered. But I must admit that the way in which you criticize the mainstream of current research seems to me somewhat too polemical (but maybe it's a matter of taste). I don't think that the boundaries between truth and error in human knowledge (apart from logic and pure mathematics) are so clear and I don't even know if there is a specific plan by the prevailing scientific community to support at any cost some particular theoretical framework. As for the quantum representation of reality (QR), that you think has favored a distorted view of things, it seems clear that quantum mechanics actually works, but no one knows yet why it works. It is likely that the interpretations proposed so far, including that of Copenhagen, are not correct or are incomplete, but we have still to find the right way to replace them. It is not an easy task and I think, but perhaps I'm deceiving myself, that philosophy has something to say about it.

        My very kind regards for you,

        Giovanni

        Dear Giovanni

        Thank you very much for your favorable words and valuable remarks. These are good support to me, a morally only, but it is also the support. I see mainly we are like-minded people, and let me be just tell some small remarks only:

        1. You says //the nature of fundamental particles (and QR) has not yet been clarified// - but you already know one crazy guy who says "I know this" and he points on the large works and on the concretely results (see Refs)

        2. Then you says //I am not a mathematician and nor the physicist ...etc.//

        My dear, the philosophy was a father of all sciences, then the philosophers must have more priority to instruct and evaluate of mathematicians and physicists (as their non-thankful sons!) than the opposite!

        However, I think everything is in the usual rule of things!

        Be well and many successes to you!

        Dear George Kirakosyan,

        Thank you for pointing me to your essay. You have covered a lot of ground and I sometimes wonder if key insights you share are lost in translation. Having said that there is a nugget you mentioned that deserves more attention. In reference to the original question, you state "This may happen, if ... aims and intentions can be mindless!" I think many authors have not considered this as a case study and you have inspired me to think more about it.

        In any event I wanted to let you know I have also rated your essay in the meantime.

        Regards,

        Robert

        Dear George,

        You have written a very good essay and I agree to most of the facts that you brought up. Sometimes I feel some that kind of mentality that existed during Galileo still remains in some area, therefore like other people in this forum I believe the modern physics needs change course in some of its areas.

        I wish you very good luck in your essay.

        Warm regards

        Koorosh

          Hi dear Eckard,

          I have read your essay (in known meaning) and I feel that you are one person who are inclined to bitterly criticism. My dear, there is small quantity people who like such persons. (I think for this your position in the rating list looks not so happy!) In my opinion however, any valuable thing impossible to created without serious criticism. But this is the reality. For example, we well understanding what will happen if the critic-wolf will be absent in the forest, - and we continue kill them. So I can be fully with you and even good supporting to you (because me also are somewhat critic!) let me give you one technological advice only - It will better to take one concrete nail and to bit it to end! You can try, for example, to cut whole physics by Occam's razor - to see what remain there after? (I am trying do this in my works) I do not know how will useful my support to you but I am going to do it.

          Good wishes to you, in your hard work.

          Dear Sir,

          You are absolutely right about the central role of the Observer, because, without observation, nothing exists for the system. By this, we imply the triplet of the Observer, the Observed and the Mechanism of Observation. The last two make sense only if the Observer observes. For this reason, "his own ability and rightness of actions" cannot be questioned or even discussed, as it is the be all and end all of all perceptions. We cannot even imagine anything beyond or contrary to what is observed, though we can compare between what is observed. Since there is no equation for observer, it is beyond mathematics also.

          You are also right about the indignity piled upon us by the superstitious lot, who blindly believed LHC to such an extent that when in July 2012 it declared the discovery of the so-called God particle, they were euphoric, but ignored it when LHC declared in December the same year that they have not yet discovered the Higg's boson, but what they found was Higg-like. They also did not protest when it was reported that it gave mass to all particles, though in reality, if the theory is ultimately proved correct, it provided mass only via weak interaction, which is less than 1% of the total mass. We pity them because they do not even know what they are talking about. Look at the large number of different approaches or formulations to the foundations of QM - many contradicting each other. Then there are various interpretations. Can we call it a coherent theory?

          The physics community blindly accepts rigid, linear ideas about the nature of space, time, dimension, etc. These theories provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better. Modern theories do not give a precise definition of the technical terms used, but give an operational definition that can be manipulated according to convenience. Wigner defined mathematics as the science of skillful operations with concepts and rules invented just for this purpose. This is too open-ended. What is skillful operation? What are the concepts and Rules? Who invented them? What is the purpose? Do all concepts and rules have to be mathematical? Wigner says: The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible, but leaves out what is permissible and what is not; leaving scope for manipulation.

          Wigner admits not only the incompleteness of mathematics but also its manipulation according to the aesthetic sense of the operator. He gives the example of complex numbers and burrowing from Hilbert, admits: Certainly, nothing in our experience suggests the introduction of these quantities. Indeed, if a mathematician is asked to justify his interest in complex numbers, he will point, with some indignation, to the many beautiful theorems in the theory of equations, of power series, and of analytic functions in general, which owe their origin to the introduction of complex numbers. The mathematician is not willing to give up his interest in these most beautiful accomplishments of his genius. A reverse self-fulfilling effect!

          Mathematics is the ordered accumulation and reduction in numbers of the same class (linear or vector) or partially similar class (non-linear or set) of objects. Coding or information is related to some physical objects. We cannot detach the physical objects from codes and say that the code or information has an independent existence - pi is in the sky! We believe in understanding the physical world through mathematics, but not creating the physical world through mathematics.

          We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.

          Regards,

          basudeba

          Many thanks dear basudeba, for your kindly words and mostly, for your meaningful remarks on the relation of reality, math and physics. I can add only one remark - many of us have thinking that the God had special intention - to hid from us the secrets of his creation. I am thinking (and I see that you also!) that the problem of cognition are linked with us, but not with the Creator!

          I wish you all the best!