Dear Cristi (on your post in my page)

Many thanks for your attention and kindly words.

You are right - I have some alternative approach and own explanations to many of basic problems hoping somebody can show interest to this.

Many thanks again and good wishes to you!

Dear Cristinel Stoica,

My rating dropped. If you did not take part in it, you can raise the prestige of the New Cartesian Physic and continue our communication.

In philosophy I was looking for an answer to the question: "What is the matter?" The answer I not found. Instead, there was the assertion that matter exists in time and space that exist separately from it. This statement I criticized. Matter does not exist, and creates time and space. Identity of space and matter lay in the basis of the New Cartesian Physic, which explained the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of which force on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck''s constant to the speed of light.

This and other achievements make me turn to you to help me to develop it further

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

Cristi,

I would like you to read my essay and give an honest review. My essay is a quick read, but it is doing poorly in the ranking and it would be helpful for me to understand why.

Thank you,

Jeff

Dear Dizhechko Boris,

I have a list of essays which I read, and yours I didn't read yet, hence didn't rate it yet. When and if I will do it, it will be according to my own evaluation, and not in order to raise or lower your ratings. About your statement you criticized, I don't think I said this about physics. It may be true about some theories, which are only approximations. Trust me, I know what I think and what I don't think about physics :) Good luck!

Best regards,

Cristi

Gary,

Thank you for the kind comments. I shaved recently, I hope someday to visit the pyramids, and I will not carry coins to avoid lightning :) And I sometimes carry with me a tablet on which I have papers to read about the law and the metalaw, but nothing complete yet :) Thanks again, and good luck with your essay!

Cristi

Cristi,

You are always thoughtful, provocative and fun to read.

I'm coming back to this later, leaving you now with my highest mark. I haven't been very engaged with this round of essays, but I always look forward to yours.

I agree that dynamics takes many forms-- my essay here

All best,

Tom

    Dear Cristi,

    now as promised, some reamrks to your essay (including an upvoting with highest mark).

    There is a lo to agree with (reminds on a letter of Pauli to Heisenberg: always boring agreement).

    But there is at least one point of disagree: the indeterminism for large systems in statistical physics is not a kind of coarse graining in state space. Even my essay showed that for large system or strong interaction some qualitative change happens. In the case of brain networks you will get a transition from a graph to a tree (having a direction).

    I suppose it also for other systems (and you don't need infinite limits...)

    But it is only a small point

    All the best and good luck for the contest

    Torsten

      Hi Christi,

      I've just read your excellent review and analysis a 2nd time. I'd hoped you'd have read my essay before commenting to help understanding. But time is now short.

      First I do like your pyramid architecture. I also invoke a layered structure, universally, as the quantum modal logic I discussed last year and also in the cortex deriving aims as higher level decisions served by feedback loops and a consequential cascade of lower level ones. Though that does need far more memory 'channel' capacity than we seem to have decoded.

      However I'd like to discuss more your; "During a quantum measurement, if the observed quantum system is in a superposition of states distinguishable by the apparatus, Schrodinger's equation predicts a superposition of states of the apparatus, one for each of the possible states of the observed system. Because we never see such superpositions, physicists postulated that during the measurement a wavefunction collapse occurs. The wavefunction collapse has some serious problems, in particular it leads to violations of the conservation laws "

      ...which I find a very good analysis, a classical solution to which is what I build up to, so I do hope you'll look as critically as possible and comment as it seems as geometrically self apparent as your pyramid. May new discoveries in this area lead to a metalaw?

      If you haven't read mine yet and wish to; don't try to speed-read it! All the value is in the dense fine structure and in building the ontology. Many thanks and very well done for yours yet again, so here we are close neighbours again!

      Very best of luck in the judging

      Peter

        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

        Thomas,

        Good to see you again and thank you for the feedback, and for mentioning your essay to me.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Dear Torsten,

        Thank you for coming back and for your kind comments. Good to see that we have agreements but also apparently a disagreement :).

        You said "the indeterminism for large systems in statistical physics is not a kind of coarse graining in state space.". Here is how I see it: I think what matters for coarse graining are the states. Two dynamical systems may live in the same state space, yet one of them be deterministic and the other indeterministic, so the coarse graining can be the same. They will evolve differently, of course. But any configuration can be reached by a deterministic evolution of one system or an indeterministic one of the second system. So I am not sure how something can emerge only in one and not the other, since it will still be one of the possible states. We can even approximate one with the other, considering nonlinear unstable deterministic evolution which depends on small state differences within the same region of the coarse graining, so the two will be indistinguishable from the higher level where only the coarse graining is perceived and not the low level details. As an example, the deterministic classical mechanics has a coarse graining which allows us to describe thermodynamics. When we realized it is quantum and this seems indeterministic, nothing was lost or gained in our understanding of thermodynamics as arising from classical statistical mechanics. Moreover, the same quantum mechanics admits both indeterministic and deterministic low-level descriptions/interpretations, and most representants of both sides agree that we can't distinguish them.

        Best wishes and success in the contest,

        Cristi

        Hi Peter,

        Thank you for the comments. We both agree that we still have to learn from what the quantum world is trying to tell us, maybe, as you said, new metalaws. I wish you good luck in the contest!

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        An excellent essay Cristi!

        There are several points of interest I'll want to return to when there is time, after the rush to read and rate the remaining essays. But I found myself several times wanting to point out analogies with the Mandelbrot Set, or even how it is a good candidate for the meta-law you seek. My GR21 presentation and Gravity Research Foundation essay both focus on what the Mandelbrot Set can tell us about Gravity. M mimics DGP gravity in a unique way, where (-0.75, 0i) is the 5-d black hole --> white hole in 4-d spacetime suggested by Pourhasan, Afshordi, and Mann.

        Still a work in progress and more to tell, but the Mandelbrot Set and its formula would fit nicely on a T-Shirt! I think you'd enjoy my essay, if you have time. Your essay is a gem and deserves to be in the finals. I'll return and talk further about what I like when I can.

        More later,

        Jonathan

          A specific comment..

          One feature in the Mandelbrot Set which sets it apart is maximal asymmetry. It maps one to one with the logistic map, such that each bifurcation is a place where the boundary folds back on itself. But it contains many exact symmetries, at the branching Misiurewicz points. However; the figure and the bounding space of each symmetric structure is asymmetrical. So what we see is perfect local symmetries against a background of global asymmetry. I think this notion has much value to Physics.

          More later,

          Jonathan

          Jonathan, thank you for your comments and the connections you make with the Mandelbrot set. In particular the connections with gravity, which you maybe already know that is used in some fractal spacetime approaches that aim to get a reduction of dimension as going to short length scales in order to make quantum gravity renormalizable (see e.g. Calcagni's work). (actually I've got the same dimensional reduction in the context of my approach to singularities, which perhaps suggests a fractality of the metric but not of the topology.) Of course, the relation with the Mandelbrot set and other fractal or self-similar object extends more than this.

          Best regards,

          Cristi

          Thanks greatly Cristi!

          I was blithely unaware of Calcagni, but not anymore. Your linked paper looks like an intriguing approach to dimensional reduction. I'm glad I checked back! That's the great thing about this forum, where connections will pop out for somebody else, that even an esteemed author might never suspect exist. I guess I should compare notes further, after some time to digest.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Dear Cristi,

          Now that rating system and formal evaluation are out of context, we may take up issues between us informally. I certainly had hoped that you would do a thorough job of evaluating my essay as I did to yours. Also, because given your diverse coverage on this subject, I was sure that you will grasp my essay comprehensively. But you made a few nice remarks about certain statements, and left at that. In place of picking agreeable statements, a person like you should give a real thrashing if you did not agree.

          As you liked the statement, "an information is necessarily semantic in our consideration", therefore, I presume you may agree with me on why and how all state descriptions of physical entities naturally carry semantic values of information without any need for an interpreter. I had also hoped that you would observe how information processing takes place at each interaction. You may then notice that all interactions could be described as 'disjunction of conjunctions of state descriptions of participating physical entities', which leads naturally to build up of semantic values by the same expression.

          Once you noted the process of semantics emerging from exchange of information at each interaction, then it was only a matter of arranging the interaction, such that higher level abstract semantics emerge. Of course, I had hoped that you would also notice in surprise that 'disjunction of conjunction of semantic values' is the way neural systems seem to be carrying out their processing.

          Moreover, once it is shown that higher level semantics can be the correlation of active states of higher level neurons, then it is easy for natural evolution to achieve selection of only those action pathways that were in line with optimizing certain higher level abstract semantics (reward values). Of course, my description was short, and therefore, I was expecting a good deal of attack from you.

          My hope of receiving a good criticism from you was dashed into dust ! This format of competitive race is not always in line with filtering the better ideas.

          You also responded with, "Information is always relative to something, but if all that is information, one should stop somewhere, and that place should be the source of the meaning." I am not sure, I fully grasped that, but there can a boot strapping process of information build up, which is not fully described in this essay though.

          Rajiv