The key requirements that allow goal oriented structures to develop in the Universe by Declan Andrew Traill

Dear Declan,

Are you aware of any of these tricks or are you just imagining the possibility of them? Imagining possibilities without a clear workable concept and without any observational evidence of their existence is not really science. It is just your desired belief. I learned a long time ago that if I really wanted to know how things really work I have to stay within the constraints of existing observational information when forming a concept and then if it requires that something exists that has not yet been observed in some way, I must wait until that observation has been made before I accept that concept as valid. As an example, the concept of a catalysis working to enable the production of living creatures does not work because it cannot generate the needed choice mechanism to choose which amino acids need to be added to make a valid protein molecule and the order in which they must be assembled to accomplish that end result. Speeding up a random process with one doesn't help because there isn't enough matter in the universe to make one of each of the possible different protein machines. This means that there would need to be a way for intelligent choices to be made. You are right that man has sometimes gained intelligent understandings that have made great advances in technology, which is an example of what intelligence can accomplish, which would be a good example that God being an intelligent being well beyond man's abilities could easily create living creatures, but the world that existed before the first living creature existed would not contain such intelligence other than from God. Being entropy based, it would work more to break down any complex structures, such as the protein machines, RNA molecules, and DNA molecules, etc. that would be needed to build the first living creature. Some of these protein machines are so delicate that man has not yet been able to keep them from breaking down long enough to take a neutron magnetic resonance image of them ounce they are extracted from a cell. It is not practical to expect the nonliving entropy based world structure to be able to exhibit the intelligence needed to plan organize and build the first living creature, of course, if you can see some actual provable way it can be done naturally, I would like to hear it. I have not been able to see any way it can be done. Generalizations of hoped for mechanisms without any observational evidence will not convince me or anyone else who really wants to know how it actually worked. Other than God, you cannot use examples of what man or other living creatures can do because they were not present at the time of the creation of the first living creature. You can only reasonably use natural processes that either exist today or of which there is reasonable observational evidence did exist at the time of the creation of the first living creature.

Where can I observe those natural fast track ways and how do they work? We all have desires as to how we would like the world to work. When we follow the observational data we often must accept that things don't work in the way that we desire them to work. We all possess imaginations. When we allow the observational information to guide our imaginations it can lead us to new understandings in science. On the other hand, when we allow our imaginations to guide our observations we are likely to come up with new understandings in science fiction. There is a market for that also, when it is clearly labeled as such, but it is an invitation to disaster when it is marketed as true science because it can hold back important advances that can often save people's lives or at least make their lives much better. That is why I always look for good practical ideas not just vague inferences of imagined possibilities. I am sure that I come across to many others as expecting too much of them, but in fact I understand man's faults and limitations, so in most cases I don't hold others to the same standard that I expect of myself, unless I see in them the ability to succeed at that level. In those cases I work harder to see if they are willing to actually achieve what they truly can. I must admit that so far in this world, I have not found many that both have the ability and are willing to put in the work necessary to become fully developed. We all, of course, have our ultimate limitations and must learn to live and work the best that we can within them.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Declan,

I realize that there are those who just consider anything that they don't understand and can't observe the evidence of its cause, to be just an unexplainable act of God. At the same time, I have also, especially recently, noticed many who automatically consider such things to be an act of nature. I am not like that because I desire to know the true cause of all things to the greatest degree that I can. If the cause of something is completely unknown and there is no convincing evidence either way, I would withhold judgment either way and just admit that I don't currently have the information to discern the cause. That is much better than to jump to a conclusion either way because that would tend to blind me from any new evidence that would suggest that the choice that I did not choose is actually the cause. It is, therefore, an error to put such things into either the God or nature basket. True science is not limited to the study of nature only or of God only. It is the pursuit of the knowledge and understanding of all things that exist. If God exists and did create the universe and the life that is in it, then that is very important for us to understand because if he in some way communicates to us the reason for the creation and why he created life including us, it could completely alter and enrich our lives in many positive ways. On the other hand, if we ignore his communication to us, it could lead to disaster because we could completely fail to fulfill his purpose for us, which could result in his rejection of us and lead to very bad consequences for us, etc. On the other hand, fulfilling our purpose could result in very good things for us. At the same time, it is important for us to understand how the world works because that can lead to the ability to control things in it in such a way as to make our lives better also. In the long run if you keep your mind open to all of the possibilities you will be able to be on the right side based on all of the currently available observational information. If new observations alter the balance in favor of one position over the other you will be ready to choose whatever the preponderance of the information indicates to be the best choice at that time. Contrary to the expectations of many people science is not as exact as some would like to believe it is. This is because we never have all of the possible observational evidence for us to be sure we interpret it accurately. When you add to that the understanding that people usually bring their desired beliefs of how they want things to be and work into their interpretation of the evidence, it is easy to see why so many false assumptions of the meaning of the observational evidence have occurred over time in science. You are right that many things have been attributed to God and later were found to be just natural functions of the structure of the universe. I am now, however, seeing many things being put down to nature that the preponderance of the evidence suggests would be better to be attributed to God. Interestingly, it has been the advancement of science that has led to this conclusion. A couple of these things are:

1. It is now apparent that the structure of the universe is that of a multilevel hierarchical device or machine that starts out in an abstract form based on simple motions that are combined to form the base level of sub-energy particles that field structures are composed of, energy photons that transfer motions between structures and matter particles that form the body of the structures. These first level structures are joined together to generate the second hierarchical level of atomic structure. The atoms of this level combine together in many ways to produce the third molecular level. The molecules are then combined together in many ways to produce the large scale literal objects that we see and use that make up the fourth hierarchical level of construction. This type of construction of starting with simple parts and combining them together into more complicated subassemblies and then combining the subassemblies together to form larger assemblies and then combining the assemblies together to make a complex structure or machine is exactly the way that intelligent man builds complex structures, such as a car, etc. This is clear evidence that intelligence was behind and directed the creation of the universe. On the other hand, a natural world that was formed by chance happenings would be a much more flat non-structured world because chance equal probability occurrences would tend toward the middle average range and, therefore, would not tend to build up complex highly improbable structures that would continually require the right choices to be made to build them into higher level structures and keep them from collapsing. This would be the case even at the most basic choice level. As an example, cyclical motion structures are required to generate energy photons and matter particles. Generally cyclical motions must travel sequentially in both directions in each dimension that takes part in the cyclical motion. To generate cyclical motions at the very lowest level of construction generally requires that the dimensional system be structured to generate them. Each of the lowest three dimensions is structured the same as the other two dimensions, which would be in accordance with what might be expected from a naturally generated universe, but the fourth and fifth dimensions are each structured differently from the first 3 and also from each other in order to allow for the production of energy photons and matter particles. The fourth dimension is somewhat more complex than the first 3 and the fifth dimension has an even more complex structure than the fourth. This progressive increase in complexity at this level is not something that would be expected to occur by chance, especially since the structural entity crossover points and dimensional size and interfacing, etc. are exactly that needed to allow the production of the energy photons and matter particles. If these were off, the universe would only contain sub-energy particles. Note: I realize that much of the above information is well beyond man's current knowledge level, but I give it for the benefit of all that may be able to understand these things at present and to man when these concepts are later commonly understood. The speed of light is the result of the motion crossover point between the lower three dimensions and the fourth dimension. If there was no fourth dimension, sub-energy particles could travel at any speed and there would not be energy photons. If the fourth dimension exists, but is structured the same as the first three, sub-energy particles would have four dimensions to travel in, but there still would not be any energy photons. It is only when the dimensional structural design is as it is that it allows photons to exist and behave as they do. Similar things could be said about the production of matter particles. Similar things could also be said about how the internal motions of matter particles interact with sub-energy particles to produce the particles' internal and external sub-energy field structures that allow the protons and neutrons to be contained in the center of an atom and also allow the electrons to be bound to their appropriate places within the external field structure, etc. At each hierarchical level there are similar finely balanced structures that would not be generated by random occurrences. Most of the things that I have mentioned here are not what you would commonly find in other material, but many current scientists have noted how universal constants, etc. are balanced just right to allow the world to exist in a way that would allow life to be formed and live. This is why the multiverse concept was developed to try to explain the problem away by saying that if there were billions of universes, it would not be unexpected that one of them would form the way this one did. The problem with that concept is that there is no observational evidence of the existence of a multiverse, so it is just another imaginary thing invented to distract people from where the actual observational evidence leads to.

2. The production of the first living creature is the other area where it is obvious that intelligence was involved. I have already given information that shows that the protein machines that are in all living creatures could not be randomly produced by natural occurrences because of the vast number of possible different proteins that can be made. It requires an intelligence to be able to determine the needed structure that each needed protein would require in order to be able to perform its intended purpose and then to choose the number of amino acids that would be needed and their proper sequencing to produce the needed protein machines to build the living creature and then to actually build the machines. I should also mention that the protein machines are not all just a long single chain of amino acids. Many have various shapes such as spirals and even have small appendages that can be used to grab things, etc. They can be more complex structures than might be believed from just the description of them as chains of amino acids. These extra complexities that give them the ability to do what they do are also signs of an intelligence behind their construction.

I guess I got carried away again, so I will end this. My point is that all of the evidence at present points to intelligence being involved in all aspects of the universe's creation and I have not found any one that can explain these things from a naturalist perspective without falling back on nonspecific generalizations or imaginary inventions that have no observational evidence to support them or by trying to make people believe that well known attributes of the universe, such as entropy work differently than all of the observational evidence indicates that they do, etc.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Declan,

The problem with considering the universe to be God is that the intelligence that was required to build the universe would have been needed from the beginning of the universe to even generate energy photons and matter particles, etc. and the universe would not have had any structure at that time that could contain any intelligence. The universe even today does not contain such intelligence. There is no observational evidence that the universe is creating any new universes. Even the most intelligent living being in the universe today, which as far as man here knows to exist is man himself and man is nowhere near intelligent enough to plan and build the universe, so the required intelligence had to come from outside of the universe in order to plan it out and then build it all from base motions successfully. This means that both must exist separately. This does not mean that the scientific method cannot be used to learn things about God or his creation. After all, the scientific discoveries about the complex structure of the universe and the living creatures in it have now made the preponderance of the evidence to be in favor of God's needed existence to explain how it could possibly come about. There are many things we can learn about him from observing the universe that he made. The fact that he could start out with just basic motions and build them up to make the whole universe in all of its complexity shows us that he is worthy to be honored by us and we can learn much about how to do things ourselves by observing how he did these things. The fact that man builds things on the level that he can, in a similar way, does give credence to the concept that we were made in his image. Of course, the image is never as good as the real thing, so we can't start with base motions and build a universe, but we can build small things based on similar principles with the materials that we can work with. The way that the universe is made indicates that God desired for us to know that he built it. As an example, if he had only made it possible to construct the protein machines that are needed to create living creatures or if he had made a mechanism that automatically built the needed proteins in large quantities, so that we would see them laying around everywhere, it might not seem so impossible for them to have somehow come about naturally, but instead he made it possible to make so many different proteins that it would be obvious that they could not have come about naturally. I have found other such indications that he made the world in such a way as to tell us things about him. In the scriptures God tells us that he is a spirit. He tells us that a spirit has not flesh and bones (not made of matter). He also says that those who are led by the Spirit are like the wind. You can hear the sound thereof, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes. A good image of this is the sub-energy particles because you cannot see them or tell where they come from or where they go, but you can experience their effects like the push experienced when the like poles of two magnets are pushed toward each other. They also hold all of the matter particles together in the atomic and molecular levels of construction, etc. He says that his son Jesus Christ is the only mediator between him and man and that man is intended to be his body. Energy photons are a good image of the Son because they can transfer motion and information from sub-energy particles to the matter particles which make up the body structure of the universe. This transfer can work the other way also. There are also three major hierarchical structural levels that build the complexity up to the large scale objects that we see. They are the basic particle level, the atomic level and the molecular levels of structure. These three levels are for the most part invisible to us except when very large numbers of atoms or molecules are joined together. God also generally remains invisible to us except when he appears to someone to give a message to man or in the form of works that man cannot do such as in miraculous healings, etc. The longest time that he appeared was when he sent his son Jesus Christ into the world for over thirty three years to have him give us his New Testament or agreement with man during the last three and one half years of that time, which was about two thousand years ago. Since you desire to believe in a naturalistic world construction, you probably do not believe in such things and I did not either until I opened the scriptures and found that it contains scientific information about the structure of the world that is still well beyond man's current level of understanding. This is extraordinary for a book that was written about two thousand years ago, which is very long before man had any idea of the nature of atoms let alone subatomic particles, energy photons, or sub-energy particles or the field structures that they make. So, information has been given to us about God, why he made the universe, and how we figure into all of it, in both the structure of the world and also in his words that he has given to us through man over time. I gave some information from the scriptures about the structure of the world in Genesis at the end of my paper and there are many other things in various places throughout the scriptures that give information about many different things, but there would be no use going through them unless you are interested. If you are interested, I would be happy to give such information.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Declan

I think your essay is convincing " none is more essential than the fact that the energy in the Universe has a wave nature and is able to form stable three dimensional standing wave structures that persist over time. We know these structures as particles."

If it was not true we would not have a chance discussing this problem for we would nor exist.

Respectfully Karoly

faaascinating. in the original (non-truncated) version of my essay i point out that the "system known as peer-reviewed journals" has in fact become *un*intelligent, having reached a pathological (ill) state. i am intriguged that you too, declan (and others) have also been stone-walled. i am considering putting a proposal to fqxi to help break out of this, if you'd be interested to discuss it further.

declan, i love that your essay is short and to the point, but also on topic. i rated it highly, accordingly.

Declan,

I very much agree with your statement: 'Given a survivable environment, some structures will develop mechanisms that allow them to survive better than others, thus there is a clear bias towards these structures' survival. This is the case from the most basic chemical compounds, right up to living organisms. Ultimately this is what drives natural selection of species. So this innate selection process that favours 'good' structures over 'bad' structures is the third requirement to create structures that have aims and intentions to survive. The primary force involved in such interactions between particles is the Electromagnetic force. This level of interaction is also governed by Quantum Mechanics.'

The structural sequence (of survivors) from 'the most basic chemical compounds, right up to living organisms' is formalized in my essay 'The Cosmic Odyssey of Matter'. My essay further identifies social organizations as part of this sequence.

I would very much appreciate your review of my essay, should you have a few spare minutes.

Regards, Ed Kneller

Hello Traill

If I understand you correctly your measure of intelligence would be, "Once an organism has intelligence it is then able to understand its environment so that it can do things to enhance its own survival." This stands in stark contrast with the measure for intelligence that I have suggested, which would be that the 'organism' would nurture its root elements so that their chances of survival are enhanced.

I think it can be argued that your measure is what the observer from the outside sees, whereas my measure looks at what is actually happening within the organism to enable the behavior that the observer sees on the outside. Thus, if one were to set about creating an AI, it might have to be created using my measure, but the external/empirical test for validating the existence of the AI might still be what you have proposed (your measure is easier to validate). However, we may not want to create an AI that tests positive to your measure since such an AI will likely cause some conflict with humans.

Thanks for your insight on this topic. You have certainly made me think harder about my core assumptions regarding intelligence.

Regards, Willy

Dear Declan Andrew Traill

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Dear Traill,

see this paper please....

viXra:1609.0132 [pdf] submitted on 2016-09-10 12:45:24

Blue and Red Shifted Galaxies Are Resulted Due to Frequency Shifting in Electromagnetic Radiation Near Gravitating Masses in Dynamic Universe Model

Authors: Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Comments: 11 Pages.

According to General theory of relativity the frequency shift in electro-magnetic (EM) radiation close to a gravitating mass happens in one direction only, but in accordance with Dynamic Universe Model this frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum. Here we will derive the results using general Physics and Mathematics that changes the frequency of electromagnetic radiation passing near a moving gravitating mass. The frequency of the radiation will increase when the relative movement of the gravitating body is in opposite direction to EM radiation and the frequency will reduce when in same direction .

Category: Astrophysics

Best regards

=snp.

Dear Declan,

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

I'm glad that you have your own position

«but none is more essential than the fact that the energy in the Universe has a wave nature and is able to form stable three dimensional standing wave structures that persist over time. We know these structures as particles.»

«topic of wandering towards a goal resulting in goal oriented structures in the Universe. Clearly the formation of particles is the most essential step in this process»

Your assumptions are very close to me

«Mathematics and Physics drive every stage of this process by repeated application of the same rules over millennia in much the same way that mountain landscapes and images of trees/leaves can emerge from fractal equations.»

You might also like reading my essay , where the fractal principle of the device of matter is substantiate.

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Dear Declan,

Many thanks for the kind words about my essay .

I give two direct links to download the file in pdf format with text of my article "The deterministic gravitational waves".

Hyperlinks are distorted by the system, so I give symbolic link addresses

https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&confirm=no_antivirus&id=0B1MvF-AefpMmU3hTSWtQTWUtRTg

https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1MvF-AefpMmU3hTSWtQTWUtRTg

I apologize for the inconvenience, and hope for understanding.

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

DECLAN,

Interesting essay, excellent in many ways, and concise is good!

I like; "as complexity increases, intelligence will evolve as it presents an advantage that allows an organism to better survive." and "The primary force involved in such interactions between particles is the Electromagnetic force. This level of interaction is also governed by Quantum Mechanics."

I hope you may get a chance to read & comment on mine, showing you're certainly right, and how!.

Very best

Peter

Dear Andrew

I have read your essay just now. The matter is I am also deeply sure in the wave-field nature of particles as you. I have opened your articles in vixra.org that I need study in near future. You can find my papers also (see in refs), and you can see where I had reached in the same direction. I thing we will find many questions that we can share each with other. So, It is nice to meet and welcome you!

Best wishes!