Wandering Towards a Goal: How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention? by Nainan K. Varghese

Dear Independent Researcher Varghese,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

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 perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Nainan aka IR,

I wish you all the best with your in depth analysis of how intentions govern reality. I welcome you to read there are no goals as such in which I propose that consciousness is the fundamental basis of existence and that intent is the only true content of reality. Also that we can quantify consciousness using Riemann sphere and achieve artificial consciousness as per the article Representation of qdits on Riemann Sphere. Also please see all the diagrams I have attached in my essay.

Love,

I.

Nainan K. Varghese,

You note that reality is substantial and objectively real, and exists in three spatial dimensions, hence is characterized by math in so many ways. Yet, as you point out, so many mathematical statements are meaningless. What you refer to as "imaginary" entities, I call "projections of mathematical structure" onto reality. I think we mean the same thing.

I like your reminder that it's physically impossible to orbit around another moving body, in any 'closed path' sense. Also, your "existence of matter is nearest absolute truth" and therefore should be the only assumption, on which all physical theories are based. Of course I include the matter of substantial fields.

I agree that "mindless mathematical laws (on their own) do not give rise to aims and intentions." Finally, that "Present case is not different."

I invite you to read my essay and comment.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Prof Varghese sab,

You are observations are excellent, "Mathematical laws have no mind of their own. They are initially invented by human mind to suit observations. When such laws are found useful to predict results of all actions in similar phenomena, they become parts of universal theorem. If used properly, mathematical laws can define aims and intentions of physical concepts for us. However, it is the human intelligence that gives rise to aims and intention by the help of mathematics, rather than mindless mathematical laws themselves."

What is actually human mind you have to define....

For your information my paper on 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. That is one of the differences in both the models....

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 blog also where all my books and available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

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

=snp. gupta

Dear Nainan K. Varghese,

Thank you for your well-written and insightful essay. I appreciate your firm stance on the topic, although I'm not sure I agree with it. Specifically, you mention how "energy remains an undefined entity" but then go on to assert that the "existence of matter should be the only assumption, on which all physical theories are based. No other assumptions or postulations are required for a consistent concept on physical nature of universe." But, haven't energy and matter been shown to be ultimately equivalent? How can everything be truly explained while ultimately based upon an "undefined entity"?

And, what about Quantum Mechanics? Aren't all atoms and molecules assembled based upon its laws? Can these laws be said to be simply material? Doesn't the Measurement Problem point out that there is a big problem with a purely mechanistic i.e. materialist approach?

Again, thanks for the interesting essay. It got me thinking.

Yours,

William Ekeson

Hello Nainan,

As soon as I spotted:

2 2 = 4, means nothing unless the terms in the statement represent some real entities.

I knew there was hope for this essay contest.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

Hello Mr. Varghese

This is probably, the most simply explained but beautiful essay I have seen in the contest. I liked the essay very much and rated it well as well.

The part like:" it became easier and simpler to take advantage of mathematics to commonly theorize the processes instead of simulations of individual processes in the fields. For this purpose, mathematics helps human mind." was very good and relevant. But the part :"Whenever valid arguments are not available, human beings tends to take baseless assumptions or other types of shortcuts to take their places" was not quite well explained as well. What I think is that we assume most of the things but not every things are baseless, if so then we would be using wrong maths and numbers in our field.

Best part was that you used numbers to explain the real entities, in the part" 2+2=4" but I guess 2apples + 2oranges= 4fruits, if seen in group because in every field the numbers are representing something as also shown in my essay.

Also the part which I found confusing was "Emphasis on mathematics is not going to be of much help in solving problems to find true causes of physical phenomena." Because I think by maths we are able to show the quality of physical phenomena and I also think that Mathematics and Numbers should be focused if we are to reach to the aims and intentions.

But the part " Mathematical laws have no mind of their own." was very good and it coincide with my thoughts also because we humans have to, unitedly, instill mind on Mathematical laws for progression.And thank you for such interesting essay.

Also feel free to comment by reading my essay on topic "Our Numerical Universe"

Best Regards

Ajay

Dear Nainan K. Varghese,

I have read your essay and so I agree with you that

"Mathematics is a very good and very helpful tool to explain physical phenomena. Difficulty arises only when mathematics starts to question or dictate logical reasoning. It is only natural that in the eyes of a person, who is major in mathematics, everything else (physics) appear as a bunch of mathematical problems. However, the person should not forget that such solutions are to help to establish logical reasoning rather to mock at them. Emphasis on mathematics is not going to be of much help in solving problems to find true causes of physical phenomena."

With Best Regards,

Ch.Bayarsaikhan