How can Mindless Mathematical Laws give rise to Aims and Intentions? by James A Putnam

James,

I think you've excelled yourself this year, drilling down to real fundamental errors underpinning theory blocking advancement of understanding. Our shared focus on empiricism has led us to the same undeniable rational truth for 'SR'

"..the speed of light in the specific medium. This relationship is approximate for a gas and accurate for solids " (as my first fqXi essay onwards on the discrete field model DFM). Of course 'words' change; I also state "local" medium (which has some relative state of motion 'k' with others), and talk of the bi- and tri-refringence in gas, but we sing off the same irrefutable hymn sheet. I think BOTH our essays now show why the rest of mankind doesn't!

Your essay is in two rather distinct but linked parts, interesting partly as mine's the same! I entirely agree both. I don't try to verify equations themselves as that's not my area but I DO see and agree your important points on units. I give below (partly for browsers) a few very agreeable sentences;

"everything we will ever learn about the mechanics of the Universe (is) from empirical evidence."

"Theoretical physics ignores this natural knowledge and substitutes its guesses about; what 'cause' is, ..... what new properties are needed to patch any form of 'unity' back into physics equations." .... "there is fundamental unity and any physics interpretation must embrace it." ..."theoretical physics has been teaching theory that includes fundamental disunity."

"The idea that the local measurement of the speed of light tells us anything about the nature of either space or time is theoretical. It is imagined to be the case by theorists. It is a required belief system imposed upon physics."

"All systems of units can be expected to perform well within the purview of the theory within which they are derived. However, they will not work equally well outside of those confines."

"The equation f/m=a shows that empirical evidence indicates that the units of force divided by mass must reduce down to units of acceleration." (my emphasis).

And lastly, in agreement with the first section of my own essay; "..paradoxically, we may also anticipate that we will understand the universe when we understand ourselves."

I too have identified an important empirical classical mechanism cutting through the nonsense of QM to be consistent with our shared view of SR. Again there is just one 'term' and unit 'OAM' where two distinct momenta ('accelerations' on exchange) exist, rather knitting out models together. I look forward to your comments and any questions.

I see you've been trolled already. It's rife James. After an initial 10 I got an unannounced 1, and have has 6 more since with no post or evidence of reading the paper. My score will get yours up but be prepared for hits!

Very best of luck in the contest. I certainly hope yours is a finalist.

Peter

Dear James A. Putnam

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 James Putnam,

Your essay is masterful. I kept looking for you - it was worth the wait. Your first paragraph is exquisite. Your last sentence captures my essay.

Your 2nd paragraph, on meaning and order, agrees completely with my statement:

"Yet either one seamless reality exists, or the universe is simply a sum of disjointed parts, which have no conceivable reason for "hanging together" in such elegant and enduring fashion."

I think your first 2 paragraphs would been a powerful essay!

Also: "There is limited merit in a dumb mechanical interpretation. The merit is that mechanical problems can be solved..."

Yes, and realistic "structures" imposed on physical reality. But after the description became probabilistic, "unrealistic" (mathematical) structures were imposed on reality, and the confusion led to "unrealistic" understandings of reality. It is good that you always aim for the core. You've traced this back to the first "projection", the undefined 'm' of Newton. You were the first to make me aware of that aspect of physics.

As you note, intelligence 'understands' the universe, as necessary and appropriate. "Unreal" projections only confuse this understanding.

James, I wish you had submitted a shorter essay. I do not believe it's possible to argue with your overview of the intelligent universe. However anyone can argue with details of a physical model, and they will -- those that even bother to study it. As you know, I have my own models, but my current essay is more like your first 4 pages. It aims for a current comprehensive overview.

I'm so glad to see you here, and I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I did yours. As you will find as you read others, many here, like you, like Vladimir Tamari, keep improving their presentation, year after year. I find this supremely rewarding.

Good luck, my friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

James,

Good to see you again. Like Peter above I am stricken by the trolls striking in the deep of night w/o comments with the goal of dropping your score, but there are plenty of good guys like Peter and you to counteract this.

"It is asserted that everything we will ever learn about the mechanics of the Universe will be learned from empirical evidence." I subscribe to this concept and think my essay does as well. My speculative theory of dark matter needs to be field tested, not in the laboratory, observing the interrelationships of multitudinous physical objects and resulting forces where normal matter might produce dark matter through the intermingling of fusion with its strong and weak force, em forces, and the galactic roiling about the SMBH center.

As you say, "the unified original cause for all" is not mechanical. I see the natural law of entropy perhaps with the Jeremy England slant that rule small and large and perhaps brings the universe in trillions of years inexorably to a icy death, quoting Robert Frost's poem. We can accept this mindless law and try to understand how the universe lives and breathes checking its respiration without anthropomorphic prejudice.

Hope you can check out my essay and give your thoughts.

Jim Hoover

Dear James A Putnam,

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

James

You're very welcome. I haven't entered your score yet so can wait if you prefer. The only reason sometimes not to is that do think those near the top are likely to get more reads which should be helpful.

I look forwards to you comments and questions on mine. Almost nobody so far has recognised, or seen the the importance of the classical reproduction of the QM predictions. I expect as so few really understand the (not very empirical!) roots of QM. Data is all very well but where most go wrong is in the interpretation!

The very condensed 100sec version of the video is here, (but missing over 90%!);

https://youtu.be/WKTXNvbkhhI

best

Peter

Hi James,

I have been in all essay contests except the last and am glad to be back in the mix with you.

I have to admit I had trouble with your abstract (probably my limit english). But I had no trouble with your first paragraph. This first paragraph introduces a superior essay. I repeat your paragraph below for other readers to encourage them to go on and read the essay.

The Universe has evolved to the level of providing for human free-will. That is a display of great purpose and dedication toward a long term goal. The Universe rose up parts of itself to form our beings. Our parts know the means by which the Universe operates. They have to know what it is that they are destined to do. It does not matter whether one resents the word 'know' and prefers the word 'forced'. That choice is a matter of philosophical preference and does not pertain meaningfully to the Universe. We know what the Universe can do. Those parts of the Universe now working as individual beings are the means by which the Universe comprehends itself. Yet while the answers are part of our being, we do not know them without seeking to know them by our own efforts. We need to engage with the Universe in order to learn its nature.

And I appreciate your reminding me of how limited our current concepts of mass are. It is easy to forget.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

Nice essay Putnam,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg...

"1. We see that the Universe is orderly and all parts of it are meaningful. There does not exist any lack of purpose anywhere

2. During the evolution of the universe, the nature of intelligence has not varied. Our intelligence is of the same source as for the rest of the Universe. Intelligence has not wandered from that which was always intended by the universe.

3. The fact that the properties of the Universe, not necessarily those of theoretical physics, work harmoniously together to continue the operation of the Universe is certain evidence that there is fundamental unity and any physics interpretation must embrace it.

4. Physics and the mind work together to achieve understanding. Intelligence and information are the two absolute facts of the nature of the universe. Etc..."

A Good idea, I fully agree with you, probably the Universe also had a mind and consciousness of its own ............

..................... At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

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

Nice essay Putnam,

Real visible mass has a real visible surface. Only abstract conjecture about invisible mass purportedly has any "undefined properties."

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi James

I'm reading your essay for the second time now. I find myself pausing constantly in my reading, while considering so many further implications of your ideas. Considerations that cascade to so many other contemplation's. Takes me ages to read a piece when this happens.

I have enormous respect for your interpretation of physics and your consistent theme towards unification. Your approach towards defining physical units, mass, temp, charge etc, I believe is extraordinarily progressive, and will be seen somewhat as prophetic to the future of scientific method. I am sure. I know you know this well, but I also believe there are implications for the correctness of your ideas, which not even you have become aware of yet. Not a criticism at all, and besides just my personal opinion.

Another aspect I thoroughly appreciate, is that you are acutely aware that the complexity of the world requires an explanation. You have settled on the notion of the intelligence of the cosmos as an explanation for this, however the problem I have with this is that I believe the type of intelligence we associate with ourselves that can be said to conspire intellectually, is emergent of complex systems such as the brain. And so I am reluctant to ascribe intelligence of this type to simpler universal physical configurations, or the cosmos at large. But the line is sufficiently blurred by the observation that brains are not required for systems to be said to be manifesting intelligent. The existence of Collective intelligence whereby a colony of disparate parts can work together obeying simple rules, and a greater intelligence is manifested by group behavior. So ant colonies display extraordinary behaviors, but the individual ants dumber than the collective. And so with a leap of whimsical fancy, all action in the universe no matter how small, that contributes its small individual behavior to manifesting a greater universe structure, displays agency. Like individual atoms which all respond to the laws of gravity, every atom contributes to the manifestation of the motions of larger bodies, which eventuates grand cosmology, character and behaviors. Notice how I used the word agency, rather than the word intelligence? Might it be better to say that individual ants act with their limited agency, which is an intelligence in its own right, but which then collectively manifests the greater intelligence.

And so in this respect I am willing to implicate all universe actions with the phenomena of intelligence, however I think that intelligence describes a collective system better than it describes the sub components of such a system, which might be better referred to as being agents. So this makes particles dumbest, atoms smarter, cosmological structures smarter still, chemistry quite smart, but these being sub components that enable the human brain and height of intelligence that we are currently aware of.

So why does the universe have atoms acting as individual agents, that manifest this obscure universe of cosmology and biology, intelligence as a compounded theme of physics? This is when I refer to the processes described to in my essay, Darwinian Physics.

Steven Andresen

James

I suspect this essay might be to your liking by George Gantz. Have you come across this one yet?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2840

Steve

James

So I think this enables me to agree with your notion of intelligence to a certain extent. That in a sense intelligence is just compounded agency that begins with the nature of atoms and physics, that is then manifested to greater extent as collective interactions. So intelligence would be a sliding scale.

So if Atoms are at an extreme end of the intelligence scale, but none the less on the scale, then how did atoms get the very particular character and behaviors that they have? These properties require an organisational principle, which makes a sense of their very particular order and complexity. I believe I have this within a concept for which the title "Darwinian Universal" is perhaps the best fit.

I have expressed some of my ideas here, however I have a multitude of further considerations which I belief makes a very solid argument. They are waiting for the right person to come along and be inquisitive enough to ask and test me. That hasn't happened in response to my essay yet. I would have thought there would be enough content within it to spark curiosity, but apparently not. Oh well, do I keep trying?

Steve