Essay Abstract

Science does not "wander", it is not like the proverbial drunken sailor who let go of the light pole that is holding him up and tries to walk away, and it certainly does not wander toward any 'specific' goal. Science does not 'specifically' know what hand nature will deal it in the future explorations. The general goal, if it can be called that, is to describe nature as truthfully as possible. Science goes where nature and the universe lead and explains what nature and the universe present to science. Science is a straightforward logical process by which human thought evolves and sometimes revolutionizes how we view our world, while mathematics is a product of the aims and intention of science. In general, the only thing that could be construed as a goal in science is a complete understanding of how nature works and presents itself to us. In other words, science answers to nature, nature does not answer to science and especially not to any specific goal in the minds of scientists or others. Given this, once the obtuse nature of the given question is determined and the given question is translated into common English, the answer is just as easy as the question is ridiculous. The answer is simply that mathematical laws cannot give rise to aims and intentions which are normally considered aspects of consciousness. However, this raises the new question of why the given question is so obtuse in nature and needs to be translated to an answerable question, while answering this new question is significantly telling.

Author Bio

Professor Beichler taught Physics, Consciousness Studies, Mathematics, the History and Philosophy of Science and European History as well as other related subjects at the university and college levels for more than three decades before recently retiring. He has traveled around the world and taught in several different countries, but mostly within the United States. He earned his PhD in 1999 from the Union Institute and University in Paraphysics, a new and highly controversial branch of theoretical physics. His is the only such degree from an accredited university in the world.

Download Essay PDF File

6 days later

Nice essay Prof Beichler,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for example your starting sentences.... "

1. There are no such things as natural mathematical laws; mathematics is based on logical mental systems which were originally abstracted from nature and our experiences of the external world. Mathematicians have purified and distanced their subject from nature, physics and the natural world through a conscious program called 'rigorization' over the last two centuries.

2. .....Rigorized mathematics should be able to explain anything and/or everything that occurs in nature, so mathematics could not possibly provide the final answers to the scientific quest to understand and explain nature let alone "give rise to aims and intention"..... Wonderful and real experience based words...!

3. Einstein and Schrödinger had very nearly finished unification in the early 1950s, but they were so intent on interpreting the anti-symmetric and non-symmetric tensors as ultimately electromagnetic in nature, they missed the fact that they had actually predicted the existence of Dark Matter (Schrodinger, 1950) and calculated the effect of Dark Energy on material particles. (Einstein, 1952)

4. According to the Big Bang model our present universe originated from a singularity that emerged from the absolute void about 14.3-14.6 billion years ago. The actual age of the universe is important,............"

............................... At this juncture I want say a few words, Bigbang age varied many times (say for every 20 years)from less than half a billion years to 20 billion years in the past 120 years. I request you to please see my essay for further details.....

Here I am also proposing a fundamental property of Universe. It is reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe. As you are interested in fundamental questions , my essay is with a different type of fundamental ideology...

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

Dear Professor James Edward Beichler,

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 James Edward Beichler

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Jim

Brilliant essay. Well arranged and written, interesting, important and a pleasure to read. I have no idea why it's at the bottom, well I probably do! and we claim we're an intelligent species!

Of course it does help that it's consistent;: with evidence, logic and my own work, though consistency mostly seems to count too little.

I've pulled out a few lines I applauded;

" mathematics is based on logical mental systems which were originally abstracted from nature and our experiences

mathematics could not possibly provide the final answers to the scientific quest to understand and explain nature let alone "give rise to aims and intention".

Science is instead based on explanatory hypotheses and theories that are also internally consistent, but can never be 'proven', only verified

although there are flaws in relativity theory, under these condition quantum theory has been the real 'fly in the ointment' as far as unification is concerned

all that is necessary to unify all of physics is merely noting that discrete points in the quantum absolute space are equivalent to 0-D point/twist Voids in the Riemannian relative space-time continuum.

mathematics cannot be used as the basis for a model of consciousness (aims and intentions) although a physical model of consciousness can be developed and stated mathematically

relativity and the quantum theory can be shown to be completely compatible and thus unifiable."

Very well done and best of luck.

Peter

6 days later

Hello James,

Nice essay, and I largely agree with what I take to be your main point- that speculative mathematics has become disconnected from physics in such a way that it keeps Unification hidden while it's right under our nose.

Please check out my more literary essay if you get the chance.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2817

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

    Oh, and I especially liked The Highlander reference in the title. :>)

    Thanks for this essay. The phrase "...their mentally derived 'mathematical laws' rule the universe rather than simply observing the universe..." jumped out to me.

    9 days later

    Hi James,

    I appreciate you dose of sanity concerning this essay.

    Please let me quote you: "The question "how can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention" appears to turn nature on its head in its inference that consciousness (in the form of aims and intents) must either be a product of, if not emerge from, natural mathematical laws and that is just Bad Science (BS)." And if I may add with a bold and capital BS.

    The BS went right by me and I answered what I thought was the question: "How can we have free will while surrounded by a deterministic physics (described by mathematics)."

    James, do yourself a favor and:

    1. Visit my essay and comment.

    2. Visit my webpage www.digitalwavetheory.com The section on HUP will interest you. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/3_Uncertainty_and_Measurement.html

    3. Then look at: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/20_Dark_Energy_and_Mercurys_Orbit.html

    I should not have been able to make this calculation of Mercury's precession....and I think a physicist can make more sense of it than I can.

    My hope is that it may help with your concepts. I think your work here is underappreciated!

    Sincerely,

    Don Limuti

    8 days later

    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

    I thought the Higlander referene was better than a Lord of the Rings reference - One ring to find them, one ring to bind them - since the one ring was evil.

    Write a Reply...