Yehuda,

A very interesting and rather unique essay, nicely written and, for me, with many agreeable philosophical concepts. A few favourite lines;;

..show in a phenomenological approach that "movement", though it is the common denominator of all phenomena in space, does not itself suffice to explain the ratification of concreteness..

.....all tried to define and verify the concrete, but they too stayed within a causal and dualistic perception, yielding an inadequate account of the concrete.

..'memory reservoirs'

..The brain, as the central organ of memory, has the important role of preserving information and updating all its contexts.

..The sources of thought are to be found in various activities of retrieval and recycling information from one of the memory reservoirs, particularly relational information, in accord with circumstances. "

In particular regarding; "Properties shared by all phenomena; finitude, uniqueness, unity and multiplicity I have written on these matters, in particular identifying a 're-ionization mechanism involving recycling of most all galaxy material, giving a pattern and asymmetries which seem also to match the CMB peculiarities at the biggest scale.

I find your score of 1 impossible to rationalise and quite ridiculous, but there are trolls around as I had two 1's myself early on! A proper score now coming to yours. I do hope you'll read, appreciate and score my quite ambitious offering too.

Best of luck.

Peter

Dear Peter

Thanks for your comments and reading my essay.

I will gladly read your essay and hope for wide exposure for our articles.

Thanks again

yehuda atai

12 days later

The abstract looks interesting. Will read on but I have one question before I do. Are the ontological details really necessary? Can't we do simply with mass-energy? Second, since we know that there are situations in which cause and effect can provably be reversed in the temporal sense, how does your idea of movement and other characteristics address this pathology?

    Dear Abdullah

    reality is ontological and we are continuously ratifying it.

    Causality is a special case in the evolvement of phenomena.

    you are welcome to read my essay.

    thanks

    yehuda atai

    Dear Professor Atai,

    Very good and attention grabbing essay, I was enjoying reading your essay, this forum is just about new and different ideas that everybody on this planet could access.

    Kind regards

    Koorosh

    Dear Koorosh

    Thank you for reading my essay. Yes, it is a good platform to exhibit our thoughts to the world.

    Have a great week

    yehuda atai

    Dear Prof. Yehuda Atai,

    Thank you for your post on my essay....

    In my opinion, Time has one directional movement as in practice we never see time going "BACKWORDS". We don't see any thing previous except in our memories, history or records... why should we introduce things like going into time in backwards direction? As per space is concern in can be infinite, no problem.

    For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

    Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

    With axioms like... 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.

    Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

    Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

    Best wishes to your essay.

    For your blessings please................

    =snp. gupta

      5 days later

      Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

      Thanks for your comment here and indeed your perception is interesting.

      Though I have a disagreement with your statement:"No imaginary or negative time axis". First the ability to imagine is at least the ability to calculate. Even a single movement is calculating its State as a phenomenon. Second, Time is not a direction. Time is the differential change between at least two ontological "existents. Time is the rate of change.

      Yet I hope you get large exposure of your essay.

      have a nice weekend

      yehuda atai

      6 days later

      Hi Yehuda,

      I found your essay very interesting! I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on my essay The Code-Theoretic Axiom as well as a rating...

      I also wonder about any input on our new movie 'What Is Reality' which can be found on the Quantum Gravity Research youtube channel.

      Warm Regards,

      Klee Irwin

      Hi Klee Irwin

      Thanks for reading my essay and found it interesting. Yes, in my perception of reality , it is all in the attributes of a movement. the quality of our attributes are those that singular us as subjective and unique.

      I will read your essay and see you YouTube "what is reality" and comment at your essay on them. looking forward and a greater exposure for all of us.

      Thanks again

      yehuda

      Dear Atai,

      Time goes into one way only. it increases into future. it is not a vector, calculations of imaginary time will take us nowhare, but confusion only...

      best Regards

      =snp

      Dear SNP Gupta

      It seems you did not understand or read my essay.

      Time is a Human perception of reality and it does not exists in reality. We slice the event to measure it. We assumes time, because the changes between day and night etc' and the way we perceive reality with Causality and Duality principles, which gives us order and control. Causality and Duality are special cases in the occurrence of phenomena.

      All the best

      yehuda

      Yuda,

      What a magnificent essay you wrote. You certainly capture "I and Thou". You could leave off the 20 attributes of the schema; your insightful poetry is enough. The consciousness field is intended as the seamless seal of our shared concreteness. It is sensitive to momentum density, which is to say intensity of motion, and it spans the universe, but nowhere more spontaneously and more at home than here on earth.

      I profoundly enjoyed your essay.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Edwin,

        Thanks for your response and your profound enjoyment of the essay.

        The idea of unique consciousness field for each human resemble the idea of a unique "soul" out of a general ancient soul in Kabbalah (just a thought).

        Your essay indeed a challenging one.

        Hope we get large visibility and readers.

        yehuda atai

        Yehuda,

        Quite interesting essay, a different idea on ontology. Showing the movement from within the atom and how the concreteness of being relate to physical force, and movement, but even beyond momentum, vector, M/E, and time there are attributes going to aims.

        "I move, therefore I am" seems a new paradigm. Even moreso, "we are together, therefore I am"

        I assume you did not rate my essay. Often trolls strike when others comments and I've had countless trolls.

        Regards,

        Jim Hoover

        Dear Mr. Atai

        Thanks for the proton. Now I'm sure.

        If the two protons are identical, then it is also be identical their surroundings.

        Surroundings are not identical. So, two protons are not identical. Why ? Becouse, in the formula (17) are two transcendental mathematical constants. Thus, all our equations are approximations. Sometimes with immense accuracy, but they are not identity.

        Best regards,

        Branko

          Dear Branko,

          Yes, they are NOT identical otherwise as you said:"If the two protons are identical, then it is also be identical their surroundings" which is impossible to be. Proton B cant be in the exact and identical position in space as proton A.

          Thanks, best

          yehuda

          Dear Yuda,

          some initial parts of your essay appeared to me as vaguely reminiscent, in style and spirit, of the work of Teilhard De Chardin ('The Human Phenomenon'), except that you seem to develop an even more complex picture, and to cover a more restricted field -- Teilhard addresses the whole cosmos in its origin and fate.

          As a consequence, I had a reaction somewhat similar to the one I felt when reading his work: my impression is that these pictures would greatly benefit from some formalisation, one that could lend itself to some form of verification. Ideally, mathematics. Otherwise, under what type of label would you prefer your visions to be classified? Too much specific and articulated to be pure philosophy, I believe. And, although you mention particles a few times, you seem to focus mostly on sentient 'existents'. Cognitive psychology? Even in this case, your work would benefit from a more direct connection with, and technical treatment of the phenomena observed in that field.

          A specific point: you put the possibility of choice at the very root of reality. This appears in contrast with the microscopic determinism of physical law, albeit possibly full of implications for the central theme of the Contest. I would have expected some explicit comments on this contrast, and on the (predominant?) role played by this 'choice' in your global picture.

          Best regards

          Tommaso

            Hi Tommaso

            I am glad to remind you some ideas of Teilhard De Chardin which I don't know him well @ deeply. It seems, that he was both Dualist - body vs spirit and held to the principle of Causation, and the Cartesian belief in the total existence of perfect God.

            I am a philosopher that relate more to phenomenology of consciousness; Building a philosophical "floor" on the works of Husserl, Bergson, Ponti etc. My philosophical work is a positive cosmology, (not deconstructionist) a general work in all aspects from ontology through phenomenology to ethics. So I also address to the whole cosmos but in this restricted essay I limit myself to 25000 characters.(it seems I was not clear on that)

            My view is ontogenic and with it when I zoom into the nano level into the Movement-phenomenon itself (regardless whether it is a particle or a wave) I found that the subjectivity, the uniqueness of each movement whether its a grain of sand or a person or galaxie is in the quality of the movement in each of them. The movement (non movement is also an option of the system that consume energy) has attributes like "character", "memory", "structure", "material" etc, and the sum total qualities of the attributes are unique to each movement-phenomenon.

            In this essay I tried to show that reality is continuously being ratified to us internally and externally. Without this ratification we would not possess the assurance that we are unique though we change continuously.

            I showed how the ever changing preset continuous, hold us as self organization and explain the inner self what Ponti or Heidegger and others did not.

            What makes the ever changing present? or in other words of Bergson : what makes the Ever duration, Homogeneous Duration works that Bergson did not solve? He sensed and wrote that Causality does not give enough explanation and could not find the answer.

            Causality is a special case in the occurrence of Phenomenon and in reality phenomena are occurring based on the natural language of Movements. The language of the attributes of Movements.

            As to your last question, since It is all potential information of the possible actions in the relations of each "existent" in the relation, there is a choice of actions (conscious or unconscious) for each of them. This choice I define as "natural choice" bound by the environment. Since each Movement-Phenomenon is finite, the relationships always change the potential choices of action. Once a potential action is chosen the relation change again, and in this way you get a perpetuum mobile of the duration of the ever changing present.

            I think that the Mathematics of physics needs a modeling breakthrough. Its Time to philosophy to challenge science and open our horizon. Maybe string theory will be able to calculate the existents of attributes to a movement smaller than 1 in power of -34 to ratify its existent. We today, ratify the existence of quarks at a nano level of 1 in the power of -24. So, there is a way we have to go.

            I hope I explained some of your questions and our essay are exposed to large (relative) potential readers through this relationship with FQXi.

            Thanks again

            Yuda

            Dear Yehuda,

            Your essay is humane and poetic, with some elegiac taste, sometimes reminding me the book of Kohelet. Thanks. Of course, matching that sort of vision with the mathematical laws, plus being limited by 25Kch, is not an easy job. Well, I am just curious, how the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in physics (Wigner) could be matched with your picture? Are the two compatible at all?

            Your questions and additional comments to our essay would be highly appreciated.

            All the best,

            Alexey Burov.