George

Excellent job again.

I don't have the reservations expressed above as we seem to agree on all fundamentals including key roles for Maxwell, QM, Darwin, Branching logic, gates, hierarchical structures, remorseless repetition, importance top down AND bottom up influence, inadequacy of thermodynamics, undecidability of an origin, etc. My essay is thus similar in ways but deals more with the top and a 'lower' bottom. By comparison yours fleshes out the important centre from proteins upwards quite brilliantly. But some questions;

1. Do you really think 'Life' always; "collects and analyses information in order to use it to plan and execute future purposeful actions"? Do you not agree most sensory input is 'collected' ad-hoc for no such specific purpose?

2. You 'wave towards' QM frequently. I agree that's valid because logic fails when stepping closer. So do you subscribe to the belief that logic will always fail at that scale? or that our understanding may one day improve?

Perhaps answer that last one both before and after reading mine because I venture to identify a shocking revalation anticipated by John Bell and allowing classical derivation (down to reducing fractal recursion) of the full predictions! (you may recall precursors in my last 2 essays).

I'd greatly value your opinion.

Very Best

Peter

Dear Peter

I am glad about our agreements!

>> 1. Do you really think 'Life' always; "collects and analyses information in order to use it to plan and execute future purposeful actions"? Do you not agree most sensory input is 'collected' ad-hoc for no such specific purpose?

Well life collects whatever information is available, sifts it for meaning, and compares it with our predictions of what ought to be happening. If it is what was expected, it is ignored; if it is unexpected, it becomes the focus of attention. So a great deal is collected just in case! Most is discarded - but that which is used is crucial.

>> 2. You 'wave towards' QM frequently. I agree that's valid because logic fails when stepping closer. So do you subscribe to the belief that logic will always fail at that scale? or that our understanding may one day improve?

Well its not so much logic that fails at that scale as predictability; also the nature of existence is somewhat different. What we don't understand is the quantum to classical transition. That may well be understood one day.

>> Perhaps answer that last one both before and after reading mine because I venture to identify a shocking revalation anticipated by John Bell and allowing classical derivation (down to reducing fractal recursion) of the full predictions! (you may recall precursors in my last 2 essays).

I'll take a look.

Best wishes

George

    George,

    Your argument is clear and cogent. I can understand your distinction between living systems and the inanimate, but the distinction is less crisp when you think of microorganisms and some new theories like Jeremy England's. Does a virus, bacteria, fungi or protozoa have a goal or purpose and does it grow, reproduce or metabolize?

    Jeremy England's new theory regarding the second law of thermodynamics says the difference between the animate and the inanimate is that living things are much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat.

    "You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant," England said.

    Well done link of physics to logic, but is there also a cosmic or long-term link between physics and logic. What is the mixed-bag process of clouds of supernova elements forming into rocks vs microorganisms and are the latter alive or potentially alive but not the former?

    Obviously we have limited space to present our views. In the allotted space you have done a tremendous job of clearly presenting your views.

    Sincerely,

    Jim Hoover

      Thank you so much for your essay, it was a pleasure to read. In the title, you focus in macromolecules. In the essay, however, you also make of evolution a key character. I tend to believe that the latter is more fundamental that the former. So this is my question. Could the emergence of goal-directed behavior also be possible in a substrate that is not based on the chemistry of carbon? Your question at the beginning seems to be how to connect the logic of physics with the logic of life. The logic of life, however, is not limited to be implemented by biochemistry, at least not from a logical point of view. So do you think there is an essential feature that these macromolecules have, that allow them to do the job? Could that feature be found in some other structure? Or do you think macromolecules are the only possible solution?

        After just the few three sentences, already...a problem.

        To state that lifeless beings have no purpose must be a self-evident metaphysical axiom...since there's no evidence offered to support it. So there's one problem - it's not self-evident.

        If the lifeless are purposeless, then why do they exist? If life forms have a goal, what is it?

        Granted that life has a purpose - is it Darwinian materialism.... survival and reproduction? If so, then every life is a failure at surviving and sometimes at reproducing! As all life forms die, can we say that the purpose of life is death? If the purpose of life is survival then it fails...every time...unless there's an immaterial life beyond the material!

        Physical laws determine evolution of a physical system in a purposeless inevitable way.

        Then - how can life forms exist without the support of inanimate beings, George? Doesn't the use of the inanimate by life forms give them a purpose? If life forms require energy and motion to survive, and energy and motion are the subject matter of physics, doesn't life depend on the subject matter of physics?

        Purpose and function seem used here univocally....implying the world of physics has no function in biology?

        But realism separates function vs. purpose as distinct: efficient cause vs. final cause! That purpose can only be perceived by the (immaterial) intellect leads once again to an immaterial source.

        Without human perception purpose would be present but unrecognized.

        When inert food is consumed by life forms, does the food then have a purpose when metabolized?

        Does a life form lose its purpose when it dies?

        Without inert material, life could not exist. So it does have a purpose ...to support life.

        This is all part of the general view that unfolds later on as the philosophy of materialism, naturalism and scientism tries to explain what only the (immaterial ) mind can apprehend - purpose.

        Materialism can be dismissed by simply asking what vital material substance leaves a living body upon death? It must be material, since only matter exists. Does DNA leave? The ion channels?

        Since there is a clear difference between life and death, a material cause cannot explain the difference...but an immaterial cause is possible.

        Scientists who accept mathematics are tacitly rejecting materialism, since math is an immaterial abstraction of quantity from the physical world. Math exists in an immaterial way, in an immaterial order of reality. Materialistic claims are self-contradicting so the foundations.

        All essays should start with common ground agreements, on using the scientific method and a historically proven philosophical view like realism to correctly design and interpret experiments. Realism - the heritage of Western culture - predates and surpasses the modern philosophies of choice; it uses self-evident axioms over 24 centuries old: an objective world exists, independent of observation; axioms of non-contradiction, finite and sufficient causality, etc.

        Science alone lacks the scope of knowledge domains like philosophy and theology to address the full range of human issues .

        The path to understanding the purpose of all reality as higher level immaterial causes has been described by such as Blaise Pascal who considered two "orders" of reality, matter and mind. "there is, first of all, the order of quantities - and that is enormous and infinite, the inexhaustible object of natural science. Besides that, the order of the mind, the second great realm of reality, appears, on the basis of quantity, as simply nothing, since quantitatively it takes up no space whatever. And nonetheless, a single mind is greater than the entire order of the quantitative cosmos; because mind, which has neither weight nor length nor breadth, is able to measure the entire cosmos."

        To Wolfgang Smith objects of measurement are 'physical objects' of quantity; the math order only captures a physically measurable dimension of reality. He then terms substances of quality having an immaterial order (of the mind) 'corporeal objects'.

        To this Joseph (Cardinal) Ratzinger added, "Yet above that stands the order of abstraction of qualities like truth , justice and love. Love signifies the presence of personhood, personality, the ego. That order too is, at first blush, simply 'nothing' in the order of 'mind,' of scientific intelligence, since it cannot be the object of scientific demonstration, And nonetheless, a single motion of love is infinitely greater than the entire order of 'mind,' because only love represents what is truly creative, life-giving and saving power."

        This is the level of the person, where mind introspects to become self-conscious, the level of choice, of volition, and of goal processing: setting, planning , execution and attainment of...a purpose or end ......the level of a living soul.

        In a video presentation George has stated that:

        Bottom -up causation can give emergence to the level of sand-piles of fusion reactions; there's a ceiling to the complexity possible before top-down causation. We still don't understand how the transition to Darwinian evolution occurred ...once it started we still don't know how we jumped over until top-down causation became effective in generating information.

        The Mystery of the Origin of Life's Genetic Information

        The transition to evolution - biogenesis - is only rationally comprehended via an immaterial source...which is outside the scope of science. Even then George admits ignorance of the link to top-down causation.

        But top-down causation from a final physical cause has not been covered in the essay. Describing a host of material, efficient and formal causes will not make the connection to a final goal-oriented cause a reality - unless that cause is immaterial.

        Tying up loose ends:

        ... outside religious belief, rocks and stars have no purpose.

        One star, the Sun , has a clear purpose - to support all biota. In general, recognizing the true source of immaterial goals is impossible with a materialistic philosophy, but conceivable in realism...and without divine intervention.

        Selection for function has produced the living cell, with a unique set of properties that distinguish it from inanimate systems of interacting molecules.

        Purely a description of the living cell differing from the physical components in a dead cell..... but no logical solution offered as to why the difference.

        Cells exist far from thermal equilibrium by harvesting energy from their environment.

        Then physics is needed...and so serves a purpose! Can life forms disobey the basic laws of energy transfer and motion?

        [Cells] are composed of thousands of different types of molecule. They contain information for their survival and reproduction, in the form of their DNA".

        How does purpose or function emerge from physics? .... At the micro level, through epigenetic effects in cell development [5] via gene regulatory networks [5] and through adaptive effects in signal transduction networks [9] and synapses [10]. And these are all based at the lower levels in specific molecules: proteins [14] and nucleic acids [19

        These are all physical changes. If true, the effect (life) would have greater state of being than the cause(non-life), violating the axiom of realism on sufficient causality. To wit: An effect cannot have an ability/function greater than potentially exists in the cause. In the vulgar form: Something can't give what it ain't got.

        The classic question - can one get blood from a stone?

        .... this paper will focus on voltage gated ion channels.

        If VGIC give purpose or function to life, then the VGIC must be common to all life and all VGIC be dysfunctional at death, when life ends. No evidence is presented in the body or references to support this statement.

        ... Quantum mechanical interactions based on these forces underlies the existence of the structures of neurons and their component parts.

        QM is then just another layer between the physical world and the cause of directed activity - the vital purpose.

        In the end, daily life is governed by Newton's laws of motion and Galileo's equations for a falling body, together with Maxwell's equations: and nothing can change those interactions.

        The laws have to be changed to agree with experiments. The laws of mechanics and EM have to be modified to include aethereal interactions, which make Maxwell's laws Galilean covariant ...in the form of the Hertz EM laws.

        Life collects and analyses information in order to use it to plan and execute future purposeful actions in the light of memory.

        Information content is immaterial; the form of coding is physical. More evidence of the immaterial necessity for an immaterial final cause for life.

        The key point is that the functions T(X), F1(Y) and F2(Z) are not determined by the underlying physical laws;

        These functions could just be undiscovered physical laws. Or is the contention that all the laws of physics are now known...TOE or GUT? That's a whole new achievement to challenge...

        .......they can be shaped by evolutionary or in highly complex ways..

        Evolution by random selection or complex ways is not a logically complete explanation for the means by which material objects can achieve immaterial operations...without sufficient causality in their nature.

        Unlike the case of physical laws, where the relevant interactions cannot be changed or chosen because they are given by Nature and are invariable, these interactions can fulfil widely varying biological or social or mental purposes.

        Assumes that all laws of physics are known...and that those known are all correct and complete.

        Demonstrably false.

        ... a digital computer can carry out arbitrary computations,

        Arbitrary means random - without reason or logic. The computer carries out the input instructions according to its programmed logic.

        Is this somehow an oblique reference to a Turing machine?

        Epigenetics: gene expression at lower levels is controlled at lower levels by gene regulatory networks to meet higher level needs

        The subject of epigenetics was once called introns or junk DNA...as there was no purpose seen in their presence. (Another proof that purpose is recognized only in the immaterial intellect, not in the material world. In the case of humans this recognition is obviously fallible.)

        The point is: does George believe that the book is now closed on genetic control mechanisms?

        If so, how is the role of histones and methyl groups discarded?

        Physical realisation The hierarchy of structure that underlies existence of life

        Can a structure plan itself? Did we humans plan our own genetic structure?

        The link of physics to logic: the molecular basis The logic of what happens is enabled by voltage gated ion channels in axon and dendrite membranes ......The implication is that, at least in the brain, ..... Biomolecules perform logical operations.

        VGIC and biomolecules are effects, not causes of logical operations... sufficient causality again... what is the real and credible source of the logic?

        Energy is of course used in carrying out these logical processes,

        So physics does have a function to perform.... enabling vital processes. Should the opening sentences be revised?

        ..... the necessary energy usage for cellular function is controlled by complex metabolic regulatory networks that determine what energy transactions will take place on the basis of logical operations;

        This is nominalism ..... a name of itself doesn't provide the causal power to organize and convert non-living objects into life forms. Did Aristotle's taxonomic hierarchy explain why the life forms were alive?

        The possible existence of biomolecules, and particularly the proteins that govern biological activity, results from quantum interactions mediated by the electromagnetic force.

        The same is true of inorganic molecules, George. And how do the possibilities become instantiated as actual biomolecules by physical agents?

        .....how have the specific proteins that exist and control biological function come into being? .....The relevant proteins exist because of the reading of the genetic information written into our DNA through developmental processes

        Where's the adequate causation of the genetic info written in our DNA? As usual, the premise of existing life is necessary- with no material theory to support the first occurrence of life.

        These extraordinary complex molecules with specific biological functions (for example, hemoglobin exists in order to transport oxygen in our blood stream) cannot possibly have arisen by chance.

        And so the very roots of Darwinism are discarded! Amen to irreducible complexity.

        Bottom-up self-assembly will not do the job. They have to have been selected for through the process of Darwinian adaptive selection [2] which creates new information (embodied in the sequences of base pairs in DNA [19]) that was not there before.

        But this process is teleological as described, not Darwin's theory of RANDOM SELECTION. The end(final cause) must be known to "adapt" to the desired effect. Adapting to a final end by knowledge of that end is in fact strictly forbidden by random natural selection.

        Then reading out that information by cellular processes creates the string of amino acids that forms proteins such as hemoglobin. It then has to fold to give its biologically active form. In principle that step is an energy minimisation operation;

        Energy minimization is a mathematical and hence an immaterial process governed by the Lagrange variational principle.

        .... a random input ensemble of entities is filtered to produce an ordered output ensemble, adapted to the environment via specific selection criteria.

        In this one sentence the contradictions are apparent... random entities produce an adaptation based on criteria from unspecified logical sources ... How can random chaos produce an ordered and desired change based on logic not possessed in the physical world?

        Again and again....a physical and material cause is functionally impotent to order reality to conform to a final cause.

        .....It is the remorseless continual repetition of the process of randonisation and subsequent selection that gives evolution its extraordinary creative power, underlying the emergence of complex life forms

        Does continual addition of 1 ever reach the end of the number system? Neither can any finite number of physical processes explain the life process.

        The repetition can only occur over the 5000 years of scientific history, the testability limit of the scientific method...

        Insufficient causality, in a nutshell.

        In the human case, that reshaping is achieved by technological means derived from the creative activity of the human mind.

        Yes...finally...the source of the vital logic supporting life is seen as analogous to the human mind's capability to form new immaterial forms that FOLLOW THE MIND'S FINAL PURPOSE.. But where is Nature's immaterial mind, George?

        Development of vision is a multi-level process, with higher level needs driving lower level selection of structure and function: 7 • The top level need is for a visual system that will enhance survival; • The next level need is for eyes, an optic tract, thalamus (a relay station for signals on the way to the cortex), and neocortex to analyse incoming data; • The next level is a need for photo receptor cells within the retina, and neurons and synapses to constitute neural networks to analyse the data; • One then needs specific kinds of proteins to make this all work , for example rhodopsins in Light Harvesting Complexes and voltage gated ion channel proteins in the cortex;

        Two problems - at least:

        this vision solution via evolution must occur all at once; intermediate steps would be discarded by natural DESELECTION as ineffectual.

        Development of vision implies a goal defined by a material nature incapable of future planning.

        Thus natural selection is a top down process adapting animals to their environment in suitable ways, thereby altering the details base-pair sequence in DNA.

        Why haven't the gene labs copied this ersatz top-down process and altered the DNA base pairs to produce designer life forms, as nature does?

        When the human genome was first decoded promises were made of great advances in knowledge of the genomic code. But a transparent blueprint it was not. No more than converting an unknown human language into another unknown human language would increase comprehension of the content. Most advances in the 16 years since the translation have been in treatment of diseases ...by trial and error(the old way), not by using 'top-down adaptation'

        "Evolution is essentially a process in which natural selection acts as a mechanism for transferring information from the environment to the collective genome of the species".

        Information is immaterial in content, so evolution must be , too!

        [natural selection] is doubly a top down process, through the environment creating niches (opportunities for life) on the one hand, and through the selection criteria on the other.

        Darwinism's natural selection is random unguided undirected physical mutation of the genome and random selection by survival of the fittest. This is bottom-up , not top-down.

        ...noise provides the basis for selection of outcomes on the basis of higher level selection criteria, thus creating order out of disorder....

        And violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics . The scientific universe is closed in space and time.

        Statistical randomness between levels provides the material on which selection processes can operate.

        Selection processes chosen by what? Or Whom? Selection/adaptation is a conscious choice; random is not...But inanimate objects are unconscious.

        ...there are many other biomolecules that are used in interaction networks to carry out logical operations.

        What is the physical source of the logical operations?

        In particular transcription factors binding to specific DNA sequences enable logical operations

        The mechanism(efficient cause) is not the reason/purpose . Another link in an incomplete chain of causality.

        Adaptation and plasticity Life depends on adaptation to its environment.

        By immaterial processes infused into their nature...

        The brain plasticity at macrolevels that underlies our adaptive behaviour is enabled at micro levels by biomolecules acting as logical devices choosing alternative outcomes......

        The mind chooses alternate outcomes, not the physical brain...

        Adaptive selection could not take place without physics, but unlike physics is a purposeful process in that it has the logic of increasing fitness.

        It's difficult to see how adaptive selection due to increasing fitness benefits the random survivors of extinction catastrophes...which account for more than 90% of all extinctions.

        It is irreversible, because species die out in order that others succeed;

        The dodo, passenger pigeon and wooly mammoth have recently become extinct. What extant species are documented as owing their survival to their failure to survive?

        We know the environment today and the species dependencies on the environment.... So which ones will die out; which will succeed?

        In mass extinctions survivors seem to succeed by blind luck, not because others were extinguished.....don't you think?

        the development of the language capacity ....distinguishes us from the great ape.

        Testing by scientific methodology goes back at most 5 millennia; this history shows development of different languages, but not language per se. The formation of humans with intrinsic language capability, both physical and mental, is another scientific option.

        The key thing that enabled this all to happen was the origin of life, when adaptive evolutionary processes came into being. We still do not know how that happened.

        Nor does mainstream science know what drives life to exist amid non-life....the life principle

        AMDG,

        Robert Bennett

        James,

        thanks for your thoughtful comments.

        >> I can understand your distinction between living systems and the inanimate, but the distinction is less crisp when you think of microorganisms and some new theories like Jeremy England's. Does a virus, bacteria, fungi or protozoa have a goal or purpose and does it grow, reproduce or metabolize?

        I am not an expert on all these simple organisms/entities. A virus does not count as it is not self-sufficient. The others do all those things, I think. I must clarify that the statement by Hartwell et al I quoted in my essay about purpose is not I think meant to be a metaphysical statement about the meaning of life: it is a statement about all the physiological and developmental systems that underlie life, each of which does indeed have a purpose. Thus a bacteria has flagella because they enable it to move; a bird has wings because they enable it to fly.

        >> Jeremy England's new theory regarding the second law of thermodynamics says the difference between the animate and the inanimate is that living things are much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat.

        His thesis is very interesting but I think it is only part of the story. You can't capture the full nature of life by statistical mechanics methods alone, although they will be playing a significant role at the micro level. In particular what is missing is the element of genotype selection for phenotype advantage, with the key feature that a vast number of genotypes give the same phenotype outcome. This multiple realisability of higher level function is the key element discussed by Andreas Wagner in the book I mention, and cannot I think be encapsulated by statistical physics methods, because they do not refer to function.

        >> "You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant," England said.

        I don't think he can have seriously read the literature on the origin of life. No one knows how that happened. In particular we don't know if metabolism or information came first. Nor is it likely that life originated from plants. Indeed it did not, because the early atmosphere of the Earth had no oxygen.

        >> Well done link of physics to logic, but is there also a cosmic or long-term link between physics and logic.

        We don't understand that one. Roger Penrose writes nicely about it.

        > What is the mixed-bag process of clouds of supernova elements forming into rocks vs microorganisms and are the latter alive or potentially alive but not the former?

        Yes indeed.

        Regards

        George

        Dear Inez

        Evolution is of course the key, but it has to have something to work on. I believe the only possible substrate is carbon, because it alone allows existence of molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. It is the latter that are truly extraordinary: a wonderful book about this is Protein Stucture and Function (Primers in Biology). Yes I believe macromolecules are the only possible solution.

        George

        I'm not going to write another essay, so I'll respond just to the first things you say:

        "To state that lifeless beings have no purpose must be a self-evident metaphysical axiom...since there's no evidence offered to support it. So there's one problem - it's not self-evident. If the lifeless are purposeless, then why do they exist? If life forms have a goal, what is it?"

        As stated in my previous response, that quote is not a metaphysical statement about the meaning of life, but rather refers to the obvious purpose of physiological systems in all living organisms.

        Dear George:

        Thanks for your time and I deeply appreciate your comments on my paper- FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE . Below are my responses to your comments/questions:

        1. GE Comment: "You say "The physics of the spontaneous decay phenomenon is integrated into a physical model of the universe that allows a system to induce a change to its own mass-energy state without an external agency." So this is quantum physics you are referring to - which is not purposeful, it is random as far as we can tell."

        AS Response: The physics of the spontaneous decay is described mathematically in relativistic formulations (please see detailed equations in the attached paper) and not in terms of statistical or random QM. You are correct in stating that randomness has no purpose but spontaneous decay is represented as Free-Willed and not a random phenomenon since each mass or particle is hypothesized and treated as a conscious living entity making a conscious and definite choice to decay or not. The well-known physicist Freeman Dyson alluded to the evidence of three levels of mind - the human mind, the mind residing at the micro level the atomic subatomic level, and then at the very macro levels the mind of the universe. Dyson states: "..... So the atom seems to have a freedom to choose, that's something, which characterizes quantum processes that they seem to just occur spontaneously. We call that spontaneous decay. So it is spontaneous; ......this freedom that the individual atom has to have.... seems to be an indication of some rudimentary form of mind."

        2. GE Comment: "It is hypothesized that such consciousness defined as the self-induced motivation capability inherent in living systems allows them to efficiently organize their simplest components with the intricate aims of survival, reproduction, and other biological ends employing panoply of physical effects to accomplish many conscious or free-willed chosen goals." - well yes but that is now biology not physics.

        AS Response: You are correct to point out the self-organizational capability as biology however the key point of my paper is that the physics of consciousness defined as the self-induced motivation capability inherent in living systems is the fundamental top-down causation for this biological capability. Hence, the biological purpose has its root in the fundamental physics.

        Brian Greene enumerates this fact elegantly by describing how our conscious moment-by-moment activities are governed by the physics of mass-energy equivalence described by Einstein's special relativity theory: "... When you drive your car, E = mc² is at work.....When you use your MP3 player, E = mc² is at work...... As you read this text, E = mc² is at work. The processes in the eye and brain, underlying perception and thought, rely on chemical reactions that interchange mass and energy, once again in accord with Einstein's formula." The physical process governing goals involves intentional self-induced change of state by a living system again using relativistic mass-energy conversion processes within its mind-body.

        3. GE Comment: "Such consciousness or spontaneous motion also governs the spontaneous expansion of the universe, spontaneous birth/decay of particles, and functioning of the biological mind that provides spontaneous self-motivation capabilities to biological life forms." Here physics and biology are irretrievably mixed up with each other with no clarity on their relation.

        AS Response: Again, as above, the physics of consciousness is the fundamental top-down causation for this biological capability. Hence, the biological purpose has its root in the fundamental physics.

        Best Regards

        Avtar SinghAttachment #1: 3_FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf

        George,

        "If it is what was expected, it is ignored; if it is unexpected, it becomes the focus of attention."

        I have to disagree, though I hope you may prove yourself correct. I venture that if you or colleagues read an essay here or paper withe a proposition that doesn't conform to your expectations, then far from always focussing on it you'll tend to dismiss or ignore it. Results of 10yr experiment support that! I wait with interest.

        "Well its not so much logic that fails at that scale as predictability. Do you propose QM is classically 'logical'!? That is quite a departure, including of course from Einstein, Bell, Feynman etc. Do you not think it may be the departure from Logic that leads to the apparent un-predictability?

        If someone came along and showed a way of producing QM's predictions from an unexpected classical mechanism (no 'hidden variables') as anticipated by John Bell, do you propose;

        a) You and colleagues would focus on it in the interests of advancing science? or

        b) You and all would dismiss it as it's unexpected and unfamiliar and can't be right as it's logical and too different from present doctrine, so dismiss and ignore it.

        If b) as findings to date suggest, then do you agree you may also prove wrong that; " the quantum to classical transition... may well be understood one day."

        Do you agree that what most say and what they do in science mostly prove to be quite different things, i.e. that we must look and account for hidden self delusion? (I've found that a valuable but rarely employed analytical tool).

        Best

        Peter

        Dear Peter

        >> If it is what was expected, it is ignored; if it is unexpected, it becomes the focus of attention."

        > I have to disagree, though I hope you may prove yourself correct. I venture that if you or colleagues read an essay here or paper withe a proposition that doesn't conform to your expectations, then far from always focussing on it you'll tend to dismiss or ignore it.

        Nice comment. I'm talking of the way senses such as vision work, not the way rationality works. Please see the book Making up the Mind: How the Brain Creates Our Mental World by Chris Frith.

        >> "Well its not so much logic that fails at that scale as predictability.

        > Do you propose QM is classically 'logical'!? That is quite a departure, including of course from Einstein, Bell, Feynman etc. Do you not think it may be the departure from Logic that leads to the apparent un-predictability?

        As I see it, quantum physics has its own logic, which is not the same as that of classical physics. Sure we'd welcome a hidden variable theory that really works (pilot wave theory is closest)

        Regards

        George

        George,

        "Sure we'd welcome a hidden variable theory that really works"

        Thanks That's excellent news, though why does it have to be a "hidden variable" theory? I agree with Bell they can't work! He thought the error lay in the assumptions, even pointing to where! (I found later).

        And 'Astonishingly' (his word too), I've derived and presented one, dead simple, (from just a rotating sphere and detectors) simply reproducable and falsifiable. Nobody has been able to disprove it (most just run and put their heads in the sand - including editors of course!) But it just keeps reproducing all of QM and resolving it's (classical) illogicalities.

        Please do have a go - ask any questions and please challenge whatever you like.

        Best

        Peter

        Professor Ellis,

        Thank you for your responses. You have given me a lot to think about and work upon in the future. Wagner's book sounds very interesting and I have just ordered it. Hopefully it will give me a better understanding of what I have been missing and how (if possible) the gap can be bridged between logic of physics and biology. Thanks again for your engagement and good luck in the contest.

        Cheers

        Natesh

        Dear Mr. Ellis

        Sorry, this is not related to your essay. These are questions for you as cosmologist.

        What do you think about these attitudes?

        1. The universe is inevitable;

        2. "Matter dominant universe" and "radiation dominant universe" coexist in every point in time;

        3. Mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but universe is eternal.

        4. Terms multiverse and "parallel universes" are very confusing. It is possible that there are bubbles without interaction between them, but there is the same math in bubbles of Universe.

        I concluded that using my methodology, equations, especially Eq. (17) of my essay:

        Regards,

        Branko Zivlak

          Thanks for your comments, George. Hope you have time to check out my essay and furnish your own valuable thoughts.

          Jim

          "The key difference between physics and biology is function or purpose. There is no purpose in the existence of the Moon or an electron or in a collision of two gas particles.".

          george, i would be interested to hear how you arrive at this conclusion. are you in effect saying that particles or larger objects cannot *by definition* have either aims or intentions? if so i would be interested to know why you would believe that to be the case.

          george, hi,

          in reading your essay i was encouraged that you also noted, as i do in my essay, that randomness in neural structures is very important. i was wondering if you had any further thoughts on its significance.

            Hi Luke

            biology thrives on disorder at the molecular level, as very nicely explained in Hoffman's book Life's Ratchet: How Molecular Machines Extract Order from Chaos. The randomness in neural structures is a special case. The key role of that randomness is providing a repertoire of alternatives from which a choice can be made according to higher level needs. Thus the higher context is able to select what happens through the opportunities opened up by this randomness.

            regards

            George

            Dear Branko

            sorry I'm not going to do a cosmological discussion here.

            George