Dirty Wet Chemical Universal Awakening by Steven Andresen

Steven,

I just tried to leave a post in your forum and then a post in my forum. They both ended up in your forum. Sorry. Being experienced doesn't always protect one from making a mistake! :)

James Putnam

"Youre free tomorrow! I wonder if we couldnt try live chat? Do you have Facebook, perhaps we could use the messenger service?"

I will have more time, but, I am not certain when. First I will do what my wife would like to do. That won't take up the whole day. We are in for some inclement weather. I will post in the Alternative Models forum under Blogs when I am available. I like that others, including adversaries, see what I write. I am not active on Facebook although I do have an account there. I don't use it, so I am inexperienced, although I receive notifications because it is there. My family and relatives use Facebook a lot. So I see when they have tagged me or other. I won't evaluate my discussion with Steve Agnew. I will let our posts help readers determine that for themselves. I would like to know what readers think. Maybe there are any! :) Everyone is busy. I am writing what I think needs to be said. I keep it up!

James Putnam

James Putnam

Steven,

Our winter storm failed to materialize and my time was spent with my wife out. The Alternative Models Forum is reached by clicking on Forum, then clicking on Ultimate Reality, then clicking on Alternative Models of Reality. If someone's blog messages has the link Alternative Models of Reality, then just click on their message.

Following this message is another installment on taking a derivative. That will end it for now. This is our last week for evaluating Essays. Also, I have fallen behind in our general conversation. I will see what I can do about correcting that. Two quick responses: (1) What is being transferred? If the answer is energy, then the word may seem sufficient, Physicists rely heavily upon it; but, it is not an empirically established 'substance'. There is 'magic' in some of the words that physicists use and 'energy' is one of those words. Energy is not explained. The idea of mass and energy equivalence does not explain either mass or energy. Besides they are not equivalent. They are proportional to one another. They are not the same thing.

Energy's only derivation is as the product of force and distance. One must explain 'force' if their solution relies upon the word 'energy'. What is it that is being transferred? Force is unexplained. there is much that remains unexplained because the properties of mechanics are derived from mass, length, and time. None of these are derived properties. None have a physical explanation. They are introduced simply as existing.

Response (2): Photon activity refutes the idea that time is either photon activity or object activity or both. The reason for my saying this is what I presented in my essay for the first essay contest. The Nature of Time. What i showed in that essay is that there is a Universally Constant Incremental Measure of Time. It is the time that any photon spends acquiring information about a change of velocity of a charged particle. It is also the time that any photon spends transferring that information to another charge particle. In my essay and in all of my work, it can be seen as (delta)t. It is also the time required for a photon to travel the radius of a hydrogen atom anywhere, under any conditions. It is the time it takes for any photon to pass a given point. It is independent of the speed of light which is always changing. It is the clock of the Universe and it ticks away everywhere with perfect time.

Anyway that is how I view it. My reward for learning this was that the use of (delta)t in the denominators in physics equations is what brought unity to all of my equations. It is also what allowed me to discover new equations, one of which was presented in my current essay.

James Putnam

Steven,

My facebook page is James Putnam

Steven,

"You should take notice that a derivative of a function is represented by the letter D. The reason is because taking the derivative is division. You should also notice that the symbol for integrating a function is very much like an S. The reason is because integration is taking the sum. It is addition. Addition is made simpler by memorization of multiplication tables. Division and multiplication are covered in lower mathematics as shortcuts for counting. We are still counting things. we count up and we count down."

I often write using differentials. Here is the reason why I write the mathematics as I do. If one knows algebra, then much of differential Calculus can be understood if written using those differentials. It is easy to follow. Someone reading my words might more easily connect my word meanings to my equations.

Acceleration is a change of velocity with respect to time. Since all physics empirical evidence is communicated to us via photons as measures of change of velocity with respect to time, that empirical evidence arrives in the form of incremental measures. like pieces, of acceleration, i.e., a usually very small measure of a change of velocity with respect to a unit of time. We all know that a=dv/dt. What may not be so clearly known is that dv is the differential of velocity and dt is the differential of time. The ratio of dv/dt is the derivative of velocity with respect to time.

Both of those differentials are very small changes. So small that they are said to be approaching infinitely small magnitudes. Yet their ratio does not change. Their ratio is the change of velocity with respect to time, located at some point on a curve of a plot of velocity vs time. I write it as dv/dt. Physicists might write it as Dtv. That D might also be fancy script form.

How is one to easily visualize the physical meaning of dv/dt? The answer is that the ratio of differentials comes from a right triangle. A right triangle plotted on rectangular Cartesian coordinates is the basis for the derivative of a function. The 'x' coordinate is horizontal and called the abscissa. The 'y' coordinate is vertical and called the ordinate. A right triangle has a hypotenuse. A curved line representing a change of velocity with respect to time is plotted on graph paper. The hypotenuse is called the tangent line because it is placed so that it touches the plotted curve at a point. It is the two other sides of the triangle that are of immediate interest. If velocity is plotted against time, the vertical side of the triangle represents a measure of a change of velocity; and, the bottom or base side represents a measure of a change of time.

The value of the vertical side divided by the value of the base side gives the slope of the tangent line. The slope is the rate of change of the variable 'v' with respect to the variable 't'. Having the tangent line touching only at a point means that the changes of velocity and time are as small as possible without becoming zero. Division by zero is not permitted. The extremely small change in 'v' is represented by dv and the corresponding extremely small change in time is represented by dt. These extremely small changes contribute to accuracy in the solution. The derivative is the slope of the plotted line at any point. If the line represents a plot of velocity with respect to time, then the slope (dv/dt) of the line at any point is the acceleration at that point. The steeper the slope, the greater the rate of change.

Sometimes the Greek letter Delta (A small triangle.) is used instead of the letter 'd', when the changes are not so very small. Those values of change are referred to as being incremental. Getting away from my style of math, in Calculus books you will usually not see the derivative written as dv/dt. It is customary to use the Capital letter 'D' as in Dt(v) which is saying the same thing as dv/dt. The velocity 'v' is usually a variable and its 'function' is how it varies such as v=1/2gt. The velocity 'v' is a function of the variable 't' as in 1/2gt. So, in general, all variables that are functions of 't' can be represented by a general form of a derivative written as dtf(t).

Mathematics books will be far more rigorous than I have been. My intent is to get to the basic idea of taking a derivative. You will see much more style applied to the mathematics used here by the professionals. There is good reason behind the use of all of that style. It conveys far more meanings than this simplified form that I use. However, I write so that non-professionals might also understand my work. Truth is that doesn't happen much, but, that is what I try to accomplish.

Lastly, Integration in Calculus is reversing what was done when taking a derivative. That doesn't always go smoothly. That is why Calculus books have lists of 'Integrals' that are general forms for known types of solutions. You look for the type of solution you need and let your mathematics take that form and run with it. Pay attention to lone constants. They disappear when taking a derivative. They are unknown what they were before. They have to be solved for when you reverse the process and are instead Integrating. You have to know some data, independent of the Integration process, that allows you to solve for the constant.

It all gets handled well in the end by the mathematicians. Physics is another matter. There is interpretation and invention that invades and, I think, often overpowers the mathematics causing it to serve 'interpretation and invention' rather than serve to reveal what empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

Steve,

I found that exceptionally well written, interesting, original, insightful and a very positive contribution to the subject. I also have some fundamental agreement with you hypothesis but suggest there's more underlying and different way to interpret the part Darwin identified.

I thank you for the comments on mine and look forward to more discussion when you've completed it. It builds to a powerful ontology and agrees Darwinism as a 'course grained' effect, so consistent in many ways.

I listened this morning to the brilliant Daniel Dennett interviewed by Jimal Khaleli on BBC Radio4 "The Life Scientific". Philosopher, scientist Darwin supporter and author of 'Darwins dangerous idea' as well as 'Conciousness Explained'. He'd also support both our approaches.

Other lines from yours I found particularly pertinent are;

"What is the anthropic principle, if not an effort to dismiss universal complexity as a needless discussion."

."..Progression is usually slowed by prior held expectations of what we think we are aware.

Are peoples eversions (sic. aversions) to Darwinian physics rational, or is it simply because no reasonable self-consistent hypothesis has been put forward?"

"...A feedback loop that drives toward ever increasing universal energy levels and fine-tuned purposeful structure

Very well done. I'm glad James pointed you to mine, and he was also right on yours. I've just awarded it the top score it deserves (it also needs to be in the upper groups to be a 'finalist').

Keep up the good work.

Very best of Luck

Peter

Steve,

after the contest do take a look at this; Identifying overwhelming evidence a recycling mechanism answering a lot of cosmological questions including evolution of galaxies and universes. Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676.

Peter

Steven,

I agree with James Putnam that your deductive skills are established. I would say that your essay title is unappealing to readings who like catchy titles like "Are we dust in the wind?" or something like that.

I really like your meaningful "turns of phrase" like: "The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?" or "The multiverse hypothesis might be an answer a bad science teacher invented, to quiet his students ceaseless questioning. The shame!"

For the latter, especially, it rings of a lot of truth.

Keep up the good work. I will be your next rating.

Jim Hoover

Steve, (Copy);

Thanks. Yes there IS a video showing the visual dynamics Classic QM Video.

I've posted the link many times but clearly should do it more. I hope you'll be delighted! My essays in 2014 and last year are helpful in precursing this, but only this year did I identify the final piece solving the puzzle; Interaction Cascades squaring the cos values in fields, consistent with QCD.

I watched Henry's video. Very professional graphics. He's largely right but missed identifying exactly what John Bell did, and didn't prove! (which recognized identified and stated!) He did NOT exclude a classical solution, in fact he pointed to it without being able to tie it down. He only excluded normal 'local hidden variable' theories, which ClassicQM is NOT!.

The problem is most beliefs about Bell are heresay (and ignoring the heresay is heresey!) Few have actually read the compilation of his works so it's widely poorly and 'mis'understood.

After seeing the video read the 2nd half of the essay again and it should all come to light. Let me know.

Best

Peter

Dear Steven

I fully agree with you in the problem you raise and how you identify and characterize it. Namely, I fully agree that " The question of the emergence of goals and intentions, for the most part is not a question of how biology achieved it, but rather how a non-biological universal order and structure, achieve biology?" I also agree that "...the universe and everything within it has one original cause, emergent from a simplest configuration and progressed towards a more advanced state."

I have been analyzing the problem during all my life and I found solutions for many of the issues related with this magnum problem. For instance, the reason for the apparent "fine-tuning" is just that the universe evolves. As I mention in my essay, the cause of the apparent space expansion is the phenomenon no one though of, a kind of Columbus' egg: it is not the space that expands but the matter that decreases in size, therefore standard length unit is decreasing. Although this may seem odd at first, it is easy to conclude that it is so and that current space expansion model is just a modern version of Ptolemy model, i.e., a model of what we observe assuming the invariance of an observer that is not invariant. Naturally, there are no such things as dark matter or dark energy, as there are no celestial spheres or epicycles.

This evolution of the universe implies also an evolution of Earth's climate and a very different - and better - understanding of what is required by life. What the values of constants imply is not this exact universe but an universe that evolves and passes by the present state. I don't claim that the problem of the fine tuning is solved but it is transported to a more sophisticated level. The universe is much more sophisticated than we have been considering and we can only reach it by subtle reasoning, not by complex mathematics.

I appreciated very much the courage with which you dared to face the problem and the clarity of your analysis of it. My solution for it is totally different from yours (maybe you would like to see it) but my vote reflects the first part because that is the critical part, without recognizing the problem no solution to it can be presented.

All the best

Alfredo

Hi Steven,

I have read with much attention your well written contribution.

Some points that I liked to comment on :

Indeed the extreme measure to "create" a new universe any moment a decision is made is also in my opinion toooooo much. I made a new interpretation regarding this choices in my work. The eternal availability of Eternal Now Moments in Total Simultaneity.

The anthropic principle is very acceptable for humanity because of the fact that our senses are receiving information that only human beings are able to receive, the information that we cannot receive we cannot be implemented. See my Subjective Simultaneity Sphere.

About Complexity: The more information we are receiving for example of a billiard ball, the more complex it becomes. It is our consciousness that is arguing about information received, and our reality is becoming more and more complex each moment. Science is one of the reasons of consciouss complexity. The data received on our Subjective Simultaneity Spheres that were before not even perceived are becoming "recognisable".But the complexity always was there.

We have to try to find our consciouss way in this emerging complexity.

The origin of this complexity of our NOW lies in our consciousness. We are aware of a flow of time through our memory. The past is done and contains all the information , but it is just a MOMENT.

The reality is an emergent phenomenon that can change each Eternal NOW Moment. The closed system you mention is in my perception your consciousness.

The Darwinian approach is one of many and in my perception "truth" is only existing in each individual mind. The FINAL TRUTH we will maybe never be able to perceive but it is a goal, just like searching for the Reference of reference.

I liked very much your approach so I lifted you up a little in the list. I also hope that the above points will lead you to have a look, read and aso comment and rate my esay : The Purpose of Life" that gives another view on our emerging reality.

best regards and good luck

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Dear Steven Andresen,

You do an analytical overview of the 'fine tuning' problem and critique the invention of multiple universes and anthropic principle as weak solutions. Gotta agree there! You are, in my opinion, correct to tie the problem of complexity to the fine-tuning problem. It is hard to recognize and frame the big problems, and then to critique the "current" solutions. And, as noted above, you do it with a nice turn of phrase.

If you've read my essay, you know that I accept the Darwinian narrative as the ideal mechanism for evolving complex living/ecosystems, but I do not believe this mechanism can produce awareness where none existed before. If it could, 'awareness' would have the status of artifact, and conditional at that. For me, awareness is primordial, while the physical 'logic' that evolves leads to increased intelligence, which I define as consciousness plus logic. It is the physical logic structures that evolve. I believe consciousness predates evolution.

What I particularly like about your essay is your focus on water as key. From your comments I believe you surf and sail and spend a lot of time on water. You've put some of that time to good use. I agree with your analysis of bonding, etc., but one tends to forget the necessity to dissolve materials and make them readily available in the soup. As you point out:

"Wouldn't it be such a shame to have a dry universe full of chemical potentials, no water lying around to express them."

Absolutely!

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman