The Arrow of Entropy by Gene H Barbee

Gene,

Great essay. Nicely set out and written, and right on topic. You also identify a number of key concepts and your depth of knowledge in optics/photonics allows great insights which you follow through coherently and logically. In particular the importance of 'separations' (so important boundary states) also;

'It indicates that quantum level interactions are operational in the eye and brain.'

'There are repetitive patterns throughout nature that suggest many levels of organization'

I found yours fitted together with my own almost perfectly, agreeing entirely on the fundamentals but each also covering different areas and aspects.

One subtly difference may be in QM, that I reject it's interpretive weirdness and identify a classical way it's distributions can be explained and applied. However as we fully agree on the application I suspect there's no inconsistency. Please give me your view on that after reading it.

Very well done.

Peter

Dear Researcher Barbee,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay and I do hope that it fairs well in the competition.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Researcher Barbee,

Perhaps if you better understood my predicament, you might be a little more sympathetic toward me. I contend that the Creation of the Universe by an invisible God never took place. This means that all of the Popes who have ever lived were wrong. The Catholic Church has always attempted to execute heretics and destry their writing. I am not pasting my insistence that "The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light." on my fellow essayists' in order to try to win a monetary prize. I am doing it for self-preservation.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Gene Barbee,

As I recall, we agree on the big picture, with perhaps a different view of specific details. You summarized so many key points of my essay in one paragraph that I feel guilty for using nine pages! You asked for my thoughts. Here goes...

You are concerned about the word consciousness; which is used in many, often conflicting, ways. For this reason I define it very specifically (yet ultimately subjectively) and try to remain consistent in my use of the word.

I agree with you that "a thinking network can create information", but I believe information comes into existence when a structural change occurs in a physical system, and not until. At first I hesitated at your use of the physical 'separations' you quote from Genesis, but, on second thought, I see that these structural changes sorta fit my definition.

Yes, the brain is primarily a neural network-based processing machine, and the many processes involved from sensory input to 'processed signal' involve information storage and transfer. None of this leads, in my opinion, to 'awareness' or 'volition', any more than the gears of a clock lead to 'awareness of time'. These are the areas where 'mindless math' reigns. So I tend to doubt the statement that "the overall response of millions of neural interactions throughout the brain leads to perception". Similarly, "our eyes gather light energy but our brain gathers information. This produces consciousness...".

If consciousness is "produced", it is an artifact, no matter how 'natural' the evolution of the complex machine that produces it. In this case consciousness is 'added' to an inherently 'dumb' or 'dead' universe. This contradicts the experience I discuss wherein many claim to experience the universality of consciousness, as there is no way that I can see that such artificial productions, scattered here and there on the earth, would in any way be considered 'universal'. You sort of acknowledge this when you say "the network that results in thought is highly improbable, but we know this occurs." In my theory, "thought" represents a product of intelligence, which combines the logic of the neural network with the awareness of the universal field. Absent the field, logical combinations of physical energy flows occur, and production and storage of information, but there is no awareness, hence no mental thought.

So I will try to study your viXra paper to understand more, but my immediate response is that you very well understand the many physical aspects that go into 'thought', but these physical phenomena do not give rise to awareness (as we know it) from dead matter. And the chain from particle physics to human thought is too long, with too many gaps, to ever be proved. This is why I posit experience over narrative.

Your well thought out essay is enjoyable, and reminds us in detail what a wonderful mechanism we are!

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Barbee,

Good essay on Entropy with a touch of Genesis 1:7 ..." So God made the expanse and separated the water".... Nice

Your words....., "A network has nodes and branches. There is a probability for each branch and it is known that neural networks have feedback loops that adjust the probabilities based on expectations (similar to fuzzy logic).".... are nice.

I got a small doubt... a single molecule may not have any neural network...

You are a cosmologist also, probably you can have a look at my essay also...

Best wishes................

=snp.gupta

Hi Gene Barbee,

Thank you for the interest on my essay, thank you very much for taking time to comment on my essay. Hope you will discuss about it there itself

... Your words....Those that won the argument pointed to the uniform distribution of Helium4 and residual Deuterium, Li7, etc.

...... Reply..... That is not correct, they won't contribute to the mass; as they are parts of bigger masses. Vacuum (say ether) density is different to that of Earth or Sun or Galaxy. There is no Uniform density anywhere in the universe. Probably you don't accept.

... Your words....Their measurements were consistent with a temperature of about 1e9K and a big bang.

...... Reply..... There are some basic problems in WMAP satellites' instrumentation and software. WMAP cannot eliminate Microwave radiation from Stars, Galaxies and clusters. If you calculate CMB using Stephen-Boltzmann law there will be nothing left from BB generated CMB radiation...

Please have a look at my essay on CMB in FQXi few years back

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

... Your words.... Hubble's work argued strongly for expansion.

...... Reply..... That time Known blue shifted Galaxies are handful. Quasars are unknown. Quasars are also blue shifted. At present these two constitute 40 percent, 20 percent don't show any shift. So the expanding universe got 40 percent votes.... !

... Your words....You mentioned the fruitless search for dark matter.

...... Reply..... Many papers and books were published on Dynamic universe Model by the author on unsolved problems (of Bigbang) 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

Additionally you please have a look at the CONCLUSION of the essay and please see above... my reply to the question by...

Al Schneider wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 07:59 GMT

and my reply to...

Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 14:49 GMT

... Your words.... You are right on and it concerns me too.

...... Reply..... There are many aspects like that.

... Your words.... As others have said, I didn't find much about the FQXi topic in your essay but cosmology is definitely wandering toward a goal and many seem lost at the present time.

...... Reply..... Probably you like to read the question but you DON'T want to read the answer is it not? I hope you will read my reply here and discuss ....

Main problem was the length of the paper. I have to delete many related paragraphs to adjust for the acceptable character length.

In this essay, the property of intent of the biological world and the property of reproduction are shown to be present as properties of the universe. These properties were deducted from UGF- the Universal gravitational force acting on any mass, and the fact that Galaxies originate and quench at different times and at different distances irrespective of Bigbang. The Universe behaves as though it is having its own mind.

.... Intent.....

'..... 1.1 About Dynamic Universe Model: In our Dynamic Universe every mass is moving in a direction and goal determined universal gravitational force (UGF) as the indomitable resultant vector of gravitational forces acted by all the other bodies in the Universe. This UGF is not constant force acting in only one direction. This resultant UGF vector force is varying according to ever varying dynamic movements and positions of all the masses in the Universe from time to time. In Dynamic Universe Model, this UGF is the fundamental concept; this model calculates this force "UGF" from moment to moment using its mathematical laws on each and every mass in the SITA simulations. In this way many present-day unsolved physics problems were solved. This method is different from conventional two body problem solution.[10]......'

This UGF sets the goals for every Galaxy or for every mass..

...... Reproduction......

Galaxies take birth in different times and quench (die) in different times in different directions. But the positioning of Galaxies is not random, they will come to a stable 'Dynamic Equilibrium' positions due to UGF is the main theme.

Universe is having Galaxies, which take birth and death is happening. In the Cosmos the biological world is also a part in which is reproduction is taking place. The same thing is happening in the Galaxies. In this essay this reproduction ability is emphasized.

Gene,

Thanks for your nice comments on my string. It's great to have someone with professional expertise in the field agree with important new rationalisations.

From your 2.7 score it looks like yours has been trolled just like mine. I think it should be prohibited to apply any low score without posting a comment. It also seems a little sad for the case of proper science vs theoretical metaphysics. I think my essays hypothesis ref poor thinking methods is being proved here! I'm applying your top score now.

Best of luck.

Peter

Gene,

Where light comes from relative to our position is information. Certainly dark matter and dark energy and black holes are only assumed replicas that we assume are or are composed of what we know: matter. I speculate that dark matter might be a byproduct of normal matter in my essay. Your caution about "perfect replica" is not always well-taken.

I speak of pointing the arrow of time backwards with our viewing of the cosmos.

It would seem that nature is a network with high information that implies intent, as you say.

Regards,

Hope you have time to read my essay.

Jim Hoover

Gene,

The contest is drawing to an end, and I plan to review those I've read and am not sure that I rated. Yours I did on 4/3. Short memory.

Hope you enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I did and still do.

Jim Hoover

Interesting essay Gene,

A lot of good points, though I'm not sure all the connecting details were filled in, so it makes the reader read between the lines a bit. Still an enjoyable read and mostly on topic. The visual mechanism / QM connection was not tight, good evidence is not proof and the connection could have been highlighted better. I like the theme of separations which is often overlooked. I'm investigating how this relates to anti-associative terms in non-associative algebras. More comparing of notes when there is time.

All the Best,

Jonathan