Hi James,

Thank you for the comments. Yes, the table of the law contains the fundamental laws. In the essay I try to not use the words "theory of everything" about this, since it would be about the fundamental laws only. It is not evident at all that the higher level of organizations can be reduced to the fundamental laws, and I gave several reasons about this. Of course the table of the law underlies them, but there are limits of computability, logical completeness (by finite length proof) etc. In addition, the higher level may do stuff that is not visible in the low level ones, and may even constrain them (as I argue it happens in quantum mechanics). The table of the metalaw include no-go theorems, emergent laws that are independent on the fundamental ones, like entropy for instance, etc. I did not discuss ethics, but I think it should be connected to the metalaw too. I agree, these are all difficult, some problems may be impossible to even define.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Vladimir Rodin,

Thank you for the comments, and I am interested to see your attempts of transition to the following level of physical laws.

Best regards,

Cristi

Cristi Stoica,

You wrote a very interesting essay that touches on a number of thought provoking points and questions. However, I do not see where you addressed the supposed theme of the essay, 'How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?' Can you summarize in a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs how your essay addresses this theme?

There are several ideas discussed that certainly seem to relate to the theme, but I do not see where you pulled them all together to respond to the question posed by the theme. Now, that does not mean that you did not do this, it may just be beyond me. But, I felt that I pretty much understood most of what you discussed, and, in the end, just did not come away with a good feel for your position on the matter.

Obviously, based on the posts and ratings, others are more in tuned with your approach, which further points to my probable lacking. You can tell from my essay that I approached the theme in a more rudimentary way. I attempted to lay out how the evolution from subatomic particles, that are at the will of physics, to a living cell, that has a will of its own, might have occurred. Still, I want to know your point; so please bear with me. Thanks.

Best regards,

Bill Stubbs.

    Dear Bill,

    Thanks for reading my essay and for the comments and questions.

    You said "I do not see where you addressed the supposed theme of the essay, 'How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?' Can you summarize in a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs how your essay addresses this theme?".

    To answer this, please allow me to point you to section 8 for goals, 9,11 for consciousness, to section 12 for a conclusion, and to sections 1-7,10 for the mindless mathematical laws, on which I build the other sections, and which contain elements that I used there. I gave more attention to principles than to specific models of goals and agents for the following reasons: (1) agents with goals are pretty much understood in older results that I mention in section 8. By contrast, (2) I think that consciousness is very little understood, and I personally am not satisfied with the current models, and also I don't have a better one. I think this is due to the lack of understanding of fundamental principles, which I divide into "laws" and "metalaws". I think for the theme of the contest metalaws are most relevant, but at the same time, since fundamental science works by reductionism, I had to show the relations between laws and metalaws, and the strengths and limits of reductionism. To the perspective I intended to present with respect to the theme, I think this was the best approach. There is a long way to answer properly these questions, and without knowing what physical laws allow us to do, I think that there is little hope to answer them.

    You said you "did not come away with a good feel for your position on the matter", which means that I don't rush to conclusions, which I consider would be premature.

    You said "based on the posts and ratings, others are more in tuned with your approach, which further points to my probable lacking". I think that the comments I receive are self-explanatory of what others saw in my essay, good or bad, and the ones that gave very small ratings probably didn't comment, so perhaps it's impossible to learn from their feedback.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Christinel,

    "Why is there something rather than nothing?" A good question.

    Is so-called empty space the cusp of reality, alternatively something then nothing?

    How do you make this physics foundation solid ? of the pyramid?

    Jim

    Dear Cristinel Stoica

    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

    Hi James,

    > Is so-called empty space the cusp of reality, alternatively something then nothing?

    No, I didn't say this.

    > How do you make this physics foundation solid ? of the pyramid?

    I am not sure what you mean. If you refer to the universe as a mathematical structure, maybe consistency is enough. I am not sure what is "solid", since there is no such thing in reality. Solid objects only appear to be so. Or "solid" as a thing that can't be destroyed? What can destroy a mathematical structure? Or perhaps I am missing what you mean.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Hi Cristi,

    I send you my congrats not only for this new, intriguing Essay, but also for your recent remarkable results in general relativity, particle physics and quantum mechanics.

    Concerning your Essay, you wrote "Suppose we will find the unified theory of the fundamental physical laws. Then what?". This is a fundamental question. Your statement that "if the wave-function is real rather than mere probability, causality as we know it has to be reconsidered" is intriguing and opens various doors. Finally you wrote: "A bottom-up approach may never lead to the understanding of the higher levels, and a top-down approach is not enough." This shows how small we are with respect to the gigantic Nature.

    Your Essay is a remarkable contribution which deserves the highest score that I am going to give you. Good luck in the Contest.

    Cheers, Ch.

      Hi Christian,

      Thank you for your kind comments, I am very honored. I hope this essay contest will catalyse the rigorous research of the connections between the fundamental laws and the emergent systems. While I too dedicate most of my time to researching the fundamental law, in this essay I wanted to emphasize the necessity to also consider the metalaws. I wish you good luck with the contest!

      Cheers,

      Cristi

      Dear Cristinel Stoica,

      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 Joe Fisher,

      I could not agree more with the quote from Einstein, and with your remarks on simplicity. I am a modest seeker of simplicity myself, and I hope that the laws of the universe fit on a small tablet. Maybe some are more blessed with the ability to see the simplicity without simplifying too much, and others are more involved or sometimes lost in complexity. As a realist, you definitely know that the same simple unique reality includes all kinds. I added your essay to my planned readings. Good luck with the contest!

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Dear Cristi,

      that was interesting to read. I have some praise and some criticism -- and maybe a funny final observation! But let's begin from the start. I like the early sections of your essay, in particular |5> Floating levels of the pyramid -- I fervently support your conclusions in that section.

      I also agree with what you say about quantum field theory in |6>, but I fear we wouldn't easily reach consensus on several things you say about quantum mechanics in |6> and |7> (e.g. the non-locality implied by the violation of Bell's inequalities isn't at variance with causality and there are interpretations of quantum mechanics which avoid the problems caused by the collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation).

      You lose me somewhat in |8> and |9>. In sections |10> and |11> you develop some special version of Platonism, with which one may or may not want to agree.

      Interestingly, however, I essentially agree again with your section |12>. Given that there were a couple of points in between, which I'd challenge, this might be surprising. Looking once more at it, I think you could have almost jumped straight from |5> to |12>! I'd be curious about your views on my essay, which, I think, partially parallels those parts of your essay leading me to similar conclusions.

      Cheers, Stefan

        Hi Christinel,

        "If sentience is either reducible or related to physical structure and information, then one should expect it to be present in primitive forms at each level of reality, since structure and information are also present there." C. Stoica, 2017

        Sentience can be related to physical structure and information without being present in the lower levels constituents. It is important to avoid the fallacy of division. Regarding sentience, there either is sufficient complexity and organization for its emergence or there isn't. Beyond sentience there either is sufficient structural organization of neural architecture for goals and planning or there isn't; In my opinion. For analogy: An Aran design scarf with twisted knitted cables running its length emerges over time from some specific sequences of forces applied to a length of the spun yarn; giving the accumulated complex spatial distribution of the wool. It would be incorrect to say that, as the scarf shows the Aran cable design so must the wool yarn itself, the wool fibers making up the spun yarn and even the atoms of the wool. There are no Aran design atoms or Aran design wool fibers, or Aran design unknitted yarn. The emergent characteristic exists because of the level of complexity and organization. Though dependent on the structure and characteristics of the constituents at smaller scales the emergent characteristic is not due just to there being more. Thus, lesser amounts do not show a lesser amount of the characteristic, they do not have the emergent characteristic.

        "Photons and electrons are associated to information processing, and we can say that their goal is to propagate according to the physical laws. This goal is always to propagate an infinitesimal step, and it is always attained in an infinitesimal time, in accord to the equations of motion.?" C. Stoica, 2017

        "We can say that their goal is... but is it? A goal is an anticipated future outcome not merely action Now caused by the physics /chemistry of the situation. Inanimate objects do not have the capacity to possess goals of their own. Assigning prior purposes and goals rather than just looking at the causes is unnecessary and in my opinion inaccurate.

        You've tackled some interesting big questions. A good read, thanks.

          Dear Stefan,

          I very much appreciate your comments, including your criticism. My comments about Bell's and especially KS theorems vs. (what we used to know as) causality refers only to realistic interpretations. In particular, in KS, a realistic state has to know in advance the measurement. I don't see this as a problem, since I advocate a realistic interpretation based only on the Schrodinger equation, without collapse. But I proved here that if the measurement takes place without collapse, the initial conditions have to be special. And KS shows that whatever variables you add, hidden or not, this can't be avoided. I think that in all directions we go, we have to give up what causality used to be (past elements of reality influencing/determining future elements of reality but not vice-versa). "In sections |10> and |11> you develop some special version of Platonism, with which one may or may not want to agree." I completely agree to disagree with parts of what I wrote, in particular with these ones. I used the opportunity of this essay contest to include along with things on which science agrees also discussions of some speculative proposals, and even to propose some. I hoped I made it clear enough whenever I wrote about such things that they are possibilities rather than established truths on which we can objectively agree, possibilities which I found interesting and definitory for some underlying philosophies of nature. Thanks for the careful analysis and insightful comments, and even if we don't agree on of my entire essay, I find your remarks very useful. I am looking forward to read your essay!

          Cheers,

          Cristi

          Dear Georgina,

          I enjoyed very much reading your comments, and I am happy to see in them your keen eye for identifying the most critical parts of an argument. And if I was reading only the fragments you quoted I would most likely agree with you. In them I tried to summarize things I wrote earlier in the essay, in which in turn I tried to summarize some of my thoughts about this. You rightfully say that there are things that emerge at higher level which are not visible in lower levels (and the first half of my essay is just about this). So I think the meaning of what I mean is neither reducible nor included in the parts you quoted, it is just summarized, and perhaps I could summarize them better. If I didn't succeed, is my complete fault, I should not try to fit to much into a short essay. I plan to write what I meant in a more detailed form, in which to consider your counterarguments and others that I have myself. Maybe the conclusion I will reach will be different from this and other possibilities I mentioned in the essay. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to appeal to your keen eye after I'll finish it, so if you will still be interested I will send it to you (and also if you are not sure already it's a dead end). Thanks for your comments, and good luck with the essay, which I am looking forward to read!

          Best wishes,

          Cristi

          Dear Georgina,

          The main thing I had in mind when writing that part of the essay was to attempt to strip consciousness from what are "easy problems", to see what ultimately remains, if remains anything. I tried to explain briefly both possibilities: it remains nothing, or what remains is some primitive, bare, essence of subjective experience and goals. In the former possibility, only the form, the patterns to use your example, are relevant for this level. In the latter possibility, it should be something irreducible that remains. And I asked what would be the level where these appear, in both options, and I think the level is much lower than we expect in both cases. I try not to be committed to any of the possibilities, since I think that objective science can only describe functionality, the "as if", while our subjective experience seems to tell us that there is something irreducible beyond the "as if". For this reason I suggested to use a sort of subjective science. If there is a chance that subjective science can add something on top of the objective science, something irreducible, I can't prove objectively, and I not only stated that it is impossible to prove, but perhaps impossible to even formulate the question in an objectively rigorous way. I will see where this will lead me, but I think it is essential in both cases to strip to the bare bones as much as possible the definitions and questions about consciousness, and to go as deep as possible.

          Best wishes,

          Cristi

          Hello Cristi,

          Thank you for this coherently written and informative essay.

          I was wondering on your choice of the pyramid shape for the

          different levels of modeling. Is it just an intuition that the

          lower strata must be bigger in order to be more "foundational",

          or is there some other point to the pyramid shape that I missed?

          Miles Mutka

            Hello Miles,

            Thank you for the comments and the good question! I was oscillating between a pyramid and a tower, and perhaps the better choice is a tower. A pyramid has to end somewhere (maybe a final "purpose"?), but a tower can go on forever, so maybe this is better. However, it came handier to me to make it pyramid, and didn't give much thought of what may this convey, maybe I chose it like this because it is more stable. Good question!

            Best regards,

            Cristi