A Short Conversation on Wandering Toward a Goal by Don Limuti

Hi Don,

No I have not made it.:) I improve my theory of spherisation on FQXI.I will publish this year in logic.

Good luck ,I am wishing you all the best

Dear President Don Limuti,

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 Don Limuti

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

Dear Limuti,

Nice short discussion with LEXI, your alter self.... !

Best wishes for your aspiration for making the first artificial emotional intelligence chip!

Probably we are not machines, we have something else called "consciousness", can you provide the consciousness to the robot you are proposing to built? In my essay I am showing that the Universe is having some form of consciousness......

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 Don Limuti,

Yes you are correct, It is a nice goal indeed.....

Very fast response....wonderful...

Thank you for such nice comment on my essay. I hope you will study further on this Dynamic Universe Model....

Your thinking is wonderful...

Best wishes

=snp

Dear Don Limuti,

It's always a pleasure to read your entries. And, in the Karl Popper sense, no one can prove you wrong! You combine subtlety and humor in a way few can match. I'll bet you're a lot of fun to be with. But, having read your essay three times, I'm more impressed each time and most impressed that you do it all in a page and a half.

It's definitely good to see you back!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Don,

"Don and Lexi" have roles that could continue in the deterministic discussion. Personally I think I would go along with Hume's rejection of logical induction, denying connection to practical reason. I think I point that out in my essay regarding the apparent flirtation of humankind with possible extinction or decision making counter to our well being.

I think Hume also said that "matter in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and that every natural effect is so precisely determined by the energy of its cause, that no other effect, in such particular circumstances, could possibly have resulted from it." My utter speculation regarding dark matter suggests a myriad of interactions produce forces that might be responsible for dark matter. Thus dark matter could be a natural effect of such interactions but certainly is something we have failed to determine.

One thing your essay does is open up the thinking about the impact of mindless laws, the material world and human agency.

Jim Hoover

Hi Don,

your essay is a huge fun to read and sets the stage for all kinds of possible interpretations and answers to the quest of determinism / free will. The openness of your conversation reflects the openness of the question, although both persons in your essay (ha, ha) do believe to have the ultimate answer. But wait a minute, do they really believe, or are they forced to blieve due to determinism... (ha, ha). Believing to win the contest prize may be determined, while the actual result will not confirm it... (ha, ha)... due to determinism.... so you had a true belief about determinism but a false belief about its future results. Or maybe you belief in free will and are indeed right about it, but you've had a false belief in what it can achieve (namely winning the contest's prize, ha, ha)!

Your short essay is a perfect mirror of the unsolved questions and a projection field to possible answers. I like it because it's funny and it counteracts those views which pretend to know for sure what the answer is. Surely, my own answer is also only based on beliefs, but i think the main point, as always with fundamental questions, is how one rates certain probabilities for the truth of a certain answer. This i think depends on certain experiences one made during one's life, it also depends on proper logical thinking and most of all on the experience that there are no anomalies in nature observed, for example nothing does pop up suddenly from 'nothing' (what a word-game!). This is, i think, in contrast to the view that existence is just a brute fact which has its origins in absolutely 'nothing' (not even in a mathematically empty set). Since nothing has ever popped up out of nothing (what a word-game!), i feel myself forced to conclude that nature has indeed a highly lawful behaviour (because if it had been possible for something to suddenly pop up out of nothing, these events should have been captured by some creation myths delivered to us from the past [well, but only if these creation myths have not suddenly popped out of reality into nothing again...!... and therefore aren't available to us anymore.].

I rated your essay with the highest score and thank you very much for this enjoyable piece of paper!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Don,

I highly estimate your desire for determinism. Perhaps my essay will complement your understanding of the determinism and causes of quantum processes. Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Hi Don,

In response to what you said about Math as a 'ring of power' on my essay page, I wrote the following.

Math is much abused by those who try to make it bend to their will. A good example of Math forged into a ring of power would be the Gaussian Copula Function, which was the basis for financial derivatives, and was itself based on formulas used in risk and failure analysis. But it was used fictitiously (as though predictable risk equals zero risk), and its broad mis-usage was one of the contributing factors of the market crash in 2008. Mandelbrot had warned us before then, but the finance gurus did not listen.

So pure Math had the answers, but nobody wanted to hear.

What I didn't say on my essay page is how this also exactly fits the tale from Revelations of the 'great whore of Babylon.' Babylon is often used as a symbol in the Bible for deception or lying. That is; 'Babylon' is falsehood, untruth, cheating, or fabrication. So no wonder we will hear a great wailing from the money changers when the deception is exposed - that Math was used as a tool, like a 'ring of power,' to subjugate and control others.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Please note..

The smooth curves of the Gaussian function lead us to copulation, or so the story goes (of the Gaussian Copula function). You can't make this stuff up. And David X. Li, who created the function, also tried to warn us. But human greed won out, and the deception worked like a charm. The real world is much more strange than any fantasy.

Regards,

Jonathan

The thing is..

The real deal actually exists, but isn't used much. I've commented how transactions in financial markets are much like interactions in quantum mechanics, and Hagen Kleinert even wrote a whole chapter in his book on Path Integrals devoted to their usage in Finance Math. So in general; the Math guys are the ones advocating to do things the right way, and recommend a more sophisticated approach, while the Finance community wants to hire people with minimal training and more narrow focus (who will do what they are told) rather than hiring Math literate folks who could improve the system substantially.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Don,

I think you hit the dilemmas head on. There may be little of value to say that you didn't write or infer.

Do you think we should perhaps consider ourselves in terms of an experiment on determinism; Whether there's an intelligent experimenter or not;.. "If these particles and elements are mixed together in this way, what will happen?"

If that's purely 'deterministic' then the outcome would need to have been known beforehand. Yet we ARE a mixture of 'stuff', and when we make choices they're limited as they're from a limited range of possibilities... Hmmm.

So the solution is really perhaps semantic. Our language and its definitions are inadequate to describe nature. Do we need a word for 'determining' a limited range of possible outcomes, yet with free will within certain limits?

Nicely thought out and written, and fun!.

Best

Peter