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

James

Thank you once again for providing a mathematical lesson. Much appreciated. I have wanted to develop my mathematical capability for quite some time. When the contest is finalized and my sail boat is anti-fouled and afloat I will study your last message with fervor. When I am anchored behind isolated islands in foul weather I'll have plenty of time toward perusing such learning.

Ok I note that my notion of time being photon activity is not comparable with your approach which is independent of the speed of light. I am not motivated to contest this point of difference, but rather my intention is just to map out your concepts so I know where you stand. As I have said earlier, it is easy to find disagreement on the internet and so I dont go out of my way to seek it. I would rather sound out your ideas with a mind for learning from you.

On facebook I think you need to activate the messenger service to receive a message from me. I think we can cover a lot of ground very quickly using live chat. Instant response times will allow me to get a better gauge on your ideas.

Steve

Hi Steven,

Appreciate your visiting my essay and your generous vote.

Yes, let's discuss gravity. My website has my e-mail in the about the author section. It is don.limuti@gmail.com

I should not have been able to make the calculation I made....something unexpected is going on. It would be really cool to see if we can create either a more complete theory or come up with some experiments that can be tried.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

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

    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

    Peter

    Wonderful, I'm glad you liked it. Thank you for reading, reviewing and rating.

    I am intrigued by your suggestion we have some fundamental agreement. A conversation I will certainly pursue with you.

    I read you're essay last night and am just on my way over to your page to place review.

    Thank you once again for your support and I look forward to continued dialog with you.

    Steve

    Peter

    Thank you, I will definitely look this over. Sounds fascinating.

    Steve

    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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #52

        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

          Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Thank you kindly for these words. Knowing something of your mind from having read your essay, I am thrilled to have this review from you. I have praise for your work, so will head on over to your page today to place it. But to say for the moment, you have written something most extraordinary. Perhaps I should read more of the contending top spot essays for comparison, but it is hard to imagine they could present ideas more useful to human awareness and method of mind, that applied effectively will undoubtedly improve our general scientific method. Yours is an essay that will leave an ever lasting impression and is my favorite for winning.

          I have been feeling a shift in my awareness these past few weeks, reading various ideas and opinions about the nature of universe and consciousness. I am influenced by several people here including James Putnam and yourself who have arrived at comparable opinion on this subject. The current scientific approach to physics doesn't have the tooling necessary to bring the subject of consciousness within its description. It needs to broaden its approach.

          Question for you if you will please? In my scenario of Darwinian Universal, the material universe we observe exists to absorb the regenerative field of space which corresponds to Auv (Dark Energy), and therefore the Baryonic structures we observe in the universe make sense in terms of being structured optimized for this purpose, for what could be termed an efficient atmospheric interaction. So all characteristics of matter are evolved, and therefore nothing of matter physics can be considered fundamental. The functions of matter that lead to composite atomic structure, and matters response to gravitational fields that leads to cosmological structures, stars, galaxies etc, might then be termed as evolved "agencies". And now I need to emphasize for the benefit of my point. These evolved "agencies" of matter most extraordinary and articulated. Would it fit within your frame of mind, that these "agencies" of matter could represent the fragments of consciousness that when compiled within an elaborate structure such as the brain, could be the underlying source from which higher levels of consciousness are assembled?

          Then it could be stated that the evolved agencies of matter are exploited by biology to manifest the compounded levels of agency of mind. The agency of matter that is aware of and responds to gravitational fields, would then be directly related to all agencies matter is capable of, including mind.

          "Agency" is a useful word that is useful in describing the function of matter that is aware of and responds to gravitational fields, and agency is also useful in describing the capability of the mind we term consciousness. Consciousness could then be represented as a sliding scale that transgresses all levels of matter assembly, from individual photons and sub atomic structures, through to the extreme level of assembly and functions represented by mind. "Agency" my new favorite word.

          This is my attempt to reconcile what I have learnt these few past weeks, and views such as you and James.

          Thanks again and you will see me soon on your page.

          Steve

          Thank you for your kind words Steven. I like my ideas. I appreciate your appreciation for them. However, it is the case the Edwin Eugene Klingman is more seriously educated and more seriously experienced in science. He also writes better. When I write well, it seems to be in relatively short blurbs. I think that, in the few weeks I have known you, you are advancing at a pace that is to be acknowledged as talent. Perhaps it isn't so much a matter of advancing as it is a matter of having the opportunity for opening up. I will rate your essay in the last few minutes of the contest.

          James Putnam

          Edwin

          Yes I grew up in a fishing family in a fishing town, and make full use of the ocean in every way. Surfing, boating, sailing, fishing, diving, etc etc. My obsession with surfing has offered me a unique opportunity to tune into a dynamic of nature, of liquid matter and energy flowing through it. It is as you say, a direct experience I have had that I could express somewhat for people, but my expressions would become their indirect theory. A lot is lost in translation. But the variety of moods and different swell characteristics that come and go from day to day, is stupendous. Each surf break is unique to all others in the entire world due to a seaming endless array of subtle influences, or swell frequency and direction, bottom contour, current, tide, the list goes on forever. In addition to the determinable factors, there is also a phenomenon we refer to as the x factor. The characteristics of a given day for which we cannot determine the cause. Surfing has anomalous. There is something truly amazing about tackling a large piece of heaving ocean, driving under its curtain of heavy water, only to emerge with dry hair. It is a very intimate experience with nature, one which also translates to a useful lesson in physics.

          Surfers have coined an expression. "Only a surfer knows the feeling".

          Steve

          Thank you James. I look up to you, so receiving these words from you is meaningful to me. Perhaps I am advancing but it might also be partly the case that I spend more time trying to learn from people than imposing my views. I knew the contest would be the time to share some of my ideas, so yes, opportunity to open up. I have the sense that what you refer to as talent is actually due to effort and practice. Talent implies making something difficult look easy, so it's a wonderful complement to receive. But perhaps an illusion.

          Steve

          James

          What it comes down to, is that you represented an unprecedented opportunity to learn from. So i wasn't about to drown you out with the sound of my own voice. I learnt a lot from you very quickly, and still doing so. Thank you kindly.

          Steve

          Edwin

          Once the results are in and you have gone through the rigmarole of thanking everybody for their support for your win. And then everything has quieted down a bit, I hope you will allow me a moment to bring up two items? I hope you will find of interest. And I'm sure James will allow me to draw him into the discussion also. They are not demanding subjects in any respect, but now just isnt the time to distract from the contest.

          Kind regards

          Steve

          Dear Alfredo

          Thank you for your message of support and I do respect your limited agreement. I think too many people contingent the level of respect they show for others, on how much they agree or dont agree with that persons ideas or beliefs. Its almost an unconscious influence but something people should be more mindful of. You are a man with an unorthodox notion, so I know you know too what I refer.

          I am glad to have your recognition that physics needs an explanation for the very particular order and structure observed of the world. Then our ideas diverge, but I would still find it interesting to rationalize your argument. I generally see how your idea conforms to known observations of the world, and I have to confess that my immediate thought is to a question, how much resistance to reason could that notion withstand? I think it would be fun to read your essay. I will be in touch.

          Thank you once again

          Kind regards

          Steve

          Hi Wilhelmus

          Thank you for your message and rating. I have a feeling I will better understand what you have written above once I have read your essay. I like the notion that scientific instruments are broadening our range of senses, which broadens our awareness of the world. And that it takes time to make sense of the wider range of observations we have now made. How long before we know what the universe really is, and what it is doing?

          Kind regards

          Steve