Essay Abstract

Abstract of Our Emergent Universe Essay: Wandering Towards a Goal How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention? The foundational structure of reality appears to be in a realm of pure relationships. Mathematics is our language describing allowable relationships and their structural consequences. Our scientific models, formulating mathematical laws, have grown using a reductionist approach. These mathematical laws are derived from models making accurate predictions. Since we are too embedded within the process of emergence, we have not understood all the connections between objectified mathematical laws and our evolved ability to imagine. Closing this gap requires additional structure allowing the phenomenon of emergence to be rationally included. Is the physical universe and are the laws of nature only important components of some greater structure? My essay presents a new philosophical model for this structure. I call it Binary Reflective Field Theory. It forms the framework for our emergent universe. Graham W. Cookson ~ 2017

Author Bio

Applicant's CV Name: Graham W. Cookson, MA Born: February 22, 1949 Place: Detroit, Michigan Education: University: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan (1967-1971) Subjects: Mathematics (Major), Physics (Minor) Honors: Student of Great Distinction (awarded to one student, 7/8 semesters) Graduate: Oakland University (1971-1973) Subject: Master's Program in Mathematics Honors: Teaching Assistant on full salary and academic scholarship (1971 to 1973) Employment History: 1968 & 1969 - taught sailing and worked for White Boat Sales (commission sales), in Walled Lake, Michigan 1970-1971 - tutored mathematics for law entrance testing 1971-1972 - summer job building tractors and working at Meadowbrook Music Festival, Detroit 1971-1973 - teaching assistant (calculus) at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan 1973-1977 - employed at

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Mr. Cookson

I agree: The foundation of reality appears to be built on a realm of pure relationships.

Mathematics is our language describing allowable relationships and their structural consequences.

But: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts I will say The whole is more than all of its parts. This becouse if you say sum that meas that parts are of the same kinde as whole.

I agree: The whole is something else than the sum of its parts.

Yo conclude: Hence, the equation is Whole = sum of parts information (working together).

existence in the physical universe. But information is also part of the Whole.

You say: However, the universe may not be infinite. I think that is only part of truth. What do you think about: Universe is eternal and endless due to the movement of its parts? But in one point of time, the mass and space of universe are finite.

I agree: The Physical Universe Being Quantifiable. For mass you can see at: Zivlak B, Stoiljkovich D, Relations Between Significant Masses Based on the Boscovich's Theory, http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dragoslav_Stoiljkovic/publications

Best regards,

Branko Zivlak

Dear Graham Walker Cookson,

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

Wandering...

I am interested in the group phenomenon of this essay. If the essay's question was not intriguing enough, I was focused on the potential treasure trove of 150 different views. I uploaded all essays for my personal reference library. I have only read ten of the essays, but plan to read them. Given the time constraint, I have no idea how the contest process can give proper attention to them all. My hat is off to you...whoever you are.

I find it interesting how many of the essays seem to pick a perspective embedded in the process they are trying to describe. (a problem of forest vs trees) Another observation, however not surprising, is the egocentric commitment the essays project. Reading the various blogs, flag a tendency to shoehorn their pet theories into some fairly 'tight shoes'.

I do not expect to place with my essay. I am too outside the club. However, just being forced to articulate my theory makes me a winner. Thank you all for the fun, Graham

    Nice essay Cookson,

    Your ideas and thinking are excellent.... "My ideas offer interesting and useful new interpretations for science. Since our common sense lacks true perspective, anomalies in logic result. This change in perspective is radical. My Binary Reflective Field Model challenges science's assumption that we exist in a single platform called the physical universe. I will focus on ten anomalies implying reality is not intuitive.

    And ........

    Einstein's mathematical model of space-time fabric could just as well describe restricted relationships concerning how the physical universe can be manifested. The outcomes of both models would almost be in agreement. The main difference is a manifested universe model would predict a reason for a maximum ability to represent change.

    Etc..., Are really wonderful..."

    I request you to have a look another model of Universe also.... 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

    Thank you Mr. Gupta,

    Your comments were in the spirit of this essay contest. I have not read much about a Dynamic Universe Model however you observations will change that. My model, as I outlined it, was restricted by length and the essay question. Its creation was in response to my formal education in mathematics, physics and something extremely unusual. I needed a rational explanation for irrational observations. It is the conclusion of over fifty years of focus on one problem. Not to be too cryptic, but the body of my ideas is outside of the scope of this essay. I look forward to reading your essay, Graham

    Graham,

    If your model does explain some of the problem areas in physics, as you claim, then many more people should be examining it.

    William Goodwin

    William,

    It is 'a needle in the haystack' problem getting ideas out and discussed. My hope was this forum would provide such a platform. Instead, it seems more like a beauty contest. I have many reasons to believe in my model that are outside of the question framed for this contest. Graham

    " just being forced to articulate my theory makes me a winner" - agreed Graham. it is nice that, by asking a question, FQXI can be a catalyst for us to extend or rework our ideas.

    7 days later

    Interesting Essay: "If you combine this morphing field of relationships with the smallest unit of space, it becomes similar to a fixed and pixelated frame of a digital movie." After reading your essay, I would LOVE to get your thoughts on our new movie called What Is Reality on our Quantum Gravity Research youtube channel...after reading your essay you will most likely have some interesting thoughts on it. You will see why when you view it!

    My essay I submitted to contest is The Code-Theoretic Axiom and I'd love a rating from you. I gave yours a 10.

    Cheers,

    Klee Irwin

    10 days later

    Original essay about emergent concepts, that I aso refer in my essay:

    -We could consider that most Physical concepts (such as vacuum, energy, matter, space, time, speed,...), and also most physical theories or laws (such as Newtown, Maxwell, Thermodynamics, Relativity, Quantum,...), they are just emergent concepts and theories.

    - May we also consider that known interactions (Gravity, EM, Weak and Strong) as emerging effects ?

    - The laws of these forces (EM-S-W-G) are somehow related (albeit in different spatial dimensions), so we can say that this known forces/interactions are simply different manifestations of the same force/interaction for different spatial dimensions.

    You can read my boot "THE FRACTAL RAINBOW" (AMAZON)... If you send me email, I can send you PDF.

    Mr. George Gantz

    Great conclusion!

    This essay provided evidence that cosmic intentionality is a reasonable, consistent and complete inference about why the universe is the way it is. We can see that emergent processes exhibit intention, that systems are attracted to particular states while component units behave collaboratively in selecting those states, and that the entire process across and within levels is reciprocal. These qualities define the operative cosmic principle as love. We have the opportunity to embrace and reciprocate this love, with gratitude, joy and delight, and to believe that we are a meaningful part of a grand purpose.

    However, where in our current standard model of the universe is the structure required to support cosmic intentionality? I think a greater structure is required to support your idea of a cosmic intention. At the risk of sounding self-promoting, my Reflective Field Theory may provide such a structure. At least, it provides a starting point and structure to expand your ideas. I think you would find my essay Our Emergent Universe interesting. You have my vote of a 10, great explanation of the issues. Philosophical questions need to be addressed like, "Exactly where and how do laws of nature exert influence and order?" I think my model points in the right direction. I would like to read your reaction.

    Thank you, Graham

    4 days later

    Graham,

    I saw your post on another forum expressing frustration with the contest. I decided to read your essay. You presently have a score of 3.9 with 7 votes. You presently have 12 posts with roughly half of them being by you.

    Have you heard the expression "herding cats"? That is what this contest is like. Almost everyone who submits an essay thinks they have THE ANSWER. Maybe someone does ... I really don't know. What I do know is that you must interact with other contestants to gain any significant benefit from the exercise.

    You will have noticed that the contestants vote on each other. Lots of folks score other folks with ones without giving any comment ... we call it one-bombing. They most likely don't read the other essays ... they just want to elevate their essays in relative terms within the ranking. It's not fair but there does not appear to be a good alternative. I'll been one-bombed 8 times and two-bombed 4 times plus given a few threes. The threes might be legitimate votes.

    Some folks also go into other folks' forum to tell them about their own ideas rather than discuss the ideas of the forum's author ...

    So yes, there is plenty to be frustrated about.

    Now let's get to your essay. I've read it twice. You present your idea on page 4. Maybe I'm an idiot but I don't get it. I determine whether or not I understand something by whether or not I can express the idea using my own words. In this case, I cannot. Can you clearly state your idea in a few simple sentences?

    You state that the universe updates itself 10^43 times per second. What is the basis for this? Is it simply the Plank length divided by light-speed?

    You mention synergy and information content and entropy. Information content and entropy are themes presented in several essays, so you are in good company there. Yours is the only essay to mention synergy that I noticed ... it seems reasonable to me. It seems to me to be related to where system boundaries are drawn. This was an idea mentioned in another essay.

    You discuss several facets of physics and how your idea offers a different perspective on them, but I could not follow these arguments ... probably because I did not truly understand the central idea.

    Hopefully, this does not seem to harsh. You might have an excellent idea ... I just really cannot tell yes or no.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

    Dear Graham,

    Good writing on synergy and emergence. I hope you will develop more your ideas and refine them more, in particular mathematically.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Dear Sirs!

    Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

    New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

    New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

    Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

    Sincerely,

    Dizhechko Boris

    12 days later

    Hello Graham,

    I saw your lament about the 'beauty pageant' contest and decided to read your essay. You do have one profound insight that I'll come back to, but I was a bit disappointed given your claims. The essay was OK as far as it goes, though not as rigorous and tight as it needs to be, nor do you give folks much in terms of a precise procedure to derive or check your results independently.

    The nugget of truth is this. Things do indeed become almost purely relational, as we approach the Planck scale, and this is something a lot of Physics folks do not understand or deal with correctly. Not only are size and distance relative, but interiority and exteriority become relative near the Planck scale, so what is inside of what depends on where you are watching from and how big you are.

    As it turns out; this was a central point in my essay too, after I had a discussion about these things with Tevian Dray at GR21. But some of what you are pitching is not news or will not be anything that hasn't been tried - until you go to make it rigorous! Only then will it be clearly distinguishable from work that has already been done.

    I am reminded of Oldershaw's discrete scale relativity, and B.G. Sidharth's Planck Scale oscillators on springs. However, you are also unknowingly reproducing some of what the folks in CDT or causal sets explore, without knowing or acknowledging that territory. And someone named Weinstein was talking about something called the Obserververse, which resembles what you are talking about fairly closely - but is believed to be more rigorous (nobody knows for sure).

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Write a Reply...