James

I havent visited your page for a little while sorry. I've been distracted while maintaining my new sail boat ready for launch. I'm going sailing!

Is it possible to know information about the individual ratings? I have 8 ratings and they are widely spread, some very low I imagine and some high ratings. But I only know how to view their collective value and not their individual value.

Anonymous down votes. Yeah I was inflicted with one of those last night which took 0.5 of my overall.

I'm going to duck over to my page now and reply to your messages.

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #32

Dear James

An interesting and engaging essay. I have picked just the following to respond to:

"inanimate and mechanical ...representative of dumbness "

But aren't you anthropomorphizing the Universe imbuing it with fundamental intelligence and purposefulness, based on the relatively ephemeral instance of human intelligence, a very very small event in space and time?

"The physics of theoretical physics is a physics that is fundamentally dis-unified"

I could not agree with you more, hence my Beautiful Universe Model and current fqxi essay on what to do about it.

"The mind of Einstein has invaded physics equations and installed imaginary meanings onto space and time"

Absolutely! My essay is all about the dead-ends at the end of the road Einstein's imagination has unwittingly set for physics.

You have made other equally interesting assertions, but time and energy (mine) force me to limit myself to the above.

In admiration of search for meaning and consistancy in our knowledge of the Universe.

Vladimir

    James,

    The contest is drawing to an end, and I am reviewing those I've read and am not sure that I rated. Yours I did on 3/16. Short memory.

    Hope you enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I did and still do.

    Jim Hoover

    Dear James

    You are quite right on your analysis on the way Physics faces the properties of the universe - namely when you say "The physics fundamental view of the properties of the Universe is that they are dumb. Dumbness is mechanically compatible with orderliness. There is limited merit in a dumb mechanical interpretation. The merit is that mechanical problems can be solved; and,

    mechanical knowledge can be put to useful implementation. The mechanical investigation makes extensive use of mathematics. Objects in motion, predominantly follow predictable patterns that can be modeled mathematically in equation forms." All my life has been dedicated to find the answers to the problem you raise and I think you can find the answers to some of your questions in my work (and also I become very interested in analyzing yours carefully).

    You know, there is a problem with Physics but it is the result of a problem of common persons. Physics has to appear as "having all the answers". Most persons are not really concerned with understanding the universe, they have a practical view of things; what they want is to rely on some entity that "has all the answers"; therefore, they will follow the entity that they believe to be the one that best fits such need - either Science or a Religion. One of the main arguments used by those that are recruiting persons to the Daesh is that the Islam "has all the answers".

    In general, we do not like doubts, we do not like questions, problems; what we like is answers, certainties. We need them to be able to decide, to know where to go. Therefore, one of the rules I use since a teenager is "never raise a problem if you do not have the solution".

    I can say that I have found most of the answers I was looking for. The problem now is how to present them without degrading the image of Physics for common persons. First I though that physicists could be interested in cooperating with me in such task, but so far I had no success - that has to be an operation ruled from the top and I do not have access to it. Indeed, I was not worried about it, I decided very early to follow Copernicus lead, and publish my work only when I would be safely at my deathbed, but recently I discovered something of the utmost importance for the future of humanity and I do not know what to do with that.

    Returning to the point, I discovered one important thing that takes the magic out of current descriptions of the universe. Both relativity theory and Cosmological models are made assuming that we can make consistent models of data considering that standard units are invariant. But they are not - length unit varies with motion, field and time also! That is why the universe seems to expand, because standard length unit is decreasing. Also standard time and length units are not independent, they are linked by the average light speed in a closed path. This dependence of units with external conditions and between them is the origin of concepts like spacetime and space curvature. I succeed in "cleaning up" all the mess that arises from our variable units, establishing a new paradigm and sound ground for new models of the universe. (I notice that the problem of units also raised your attention; maybe this draft paper I have in viXra wil interest you: vixra.org/abs/1107.0016; given that it has been downloaded more than 900 times and i have received several complementary emails, it is not certainly garbage)

    All you say about Relativity is quite interesting. I will have to take some time to analyze it carefully and see how it fits and possibly complements my own analysis (I present it in a draft paper in the arXiv: arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205033). Latter on, with time - I am a slow thinker - I will give you feedback.

    If you take a look to my essay, you will probably suspect that I really may have some knowledge of the universe not at the reach of current theories; and you may find the answer for some of the problems you raise in your essay.

    I value specially the essays that dare to address the theme of the contest, as is your case; it is very easy to make a "quality" essay in known ground, giving no contribution at all for the theme of the contest; and the essays that do that are being highly rated, so I feel entitled to do the same to the ones like yours, that has the courage to move forward through the fog of our ignorance.

    All the best

    Alfredo

    The FQxi.org Essay Contests: There is an obvious over supply of the lowly 'one' votes available. Since each voter has just one vote per essay, that supply reflects a concerted effort on the part of a body of voters, not necessarily essay contributors. Does this matter? In a perfect world it would. However, in this world there is good reason to appreciate the opportunity for amateurs to submit essays alongside professionals.

    It is an opportunity to put one's ideas on a record that remains permanent and is good as any other. Perhaps the most important plus about FQXi.org is that they are tolerant to a fault. You can express your views here and not be threatened with being banned for not being a puppet made to talk about physics the way that many theoretical physicists think we should. Here is an example of mine: Physics is not dumbness, but, it is about dumbness. It is about learning the most useful relationships between empirical evidence and mechanical activities. Yet its equations are loaded with intelligent input. There is value in a contest to show how aims and intentions emerge from theoretical physics. I say that they emerge because they have been added to it. It is of interest to learn all the ways that intelligent minds have molded physics equations and property interpretations to give opportunity for those equations to reflect back to us, as solutions, all those same ways that intelligent minds have molded physics equations and property interpretations. Seriously, here at FQXi.org there is mix of the fruits of intelligence that I know of nowhere else on the Internet.

    James Putnam

    Dear Vladimir,

    "But aren't you anthropomorphizing the Universe imbuing it with fundamental intelligence and purposefulness, based on the relatively ephemeral instance of human intelligence, a very very small event in space and time?"

    Yes, of course. We were formed by the Universe from parts of itself. Those parts are fully responsible for our lives and our intelligence. The connection between the real properties of the Universe and the existence of human free-will is established. We need a liberated science to learn it. Everyone has to struggle with the existence of intelligent life. It may be that in this whole Universe that we are the only specimens of intelligent life. That is one way of looking at it. It does look very insignificant from that perspective. But, we specimens have free-will, and, the capacity to comprehend the Universe. That is easily the greatest achievement of the Universe. All else pales compared to the existence of human free-will. So from the perspective of value of results it is the opposite of insignificant.

    Two things to consider that make it clear to me that the universe does have properties that have everything needed to provide for human intelligence. None of the physics properties have any potential for the existence of intelligence. There is no way that intelligence can arise from dumbness. More to the point there is no way for meaning to rise above the level of push and pull as a result of pushing and pulling. While there is complexity that becomes so unclear that it forms a fog through which we cannot see, it is not to be used as a convenient veil serving attempts to move forward, without scientific reason and justification, from the mechanical interpretation of theoretical physics onto the emergence of intelligence.

    That fog of complexity presently is put forward to serve to hide the inherent failure of theoretical physics to predict or explain the emergence of intelligent life. It serves as the magic, out of sight, place where dumb becomes smart. It is similar to Darwin's plea for readers to conjure up, as he did for himself, an evolutionary fog of complexity formed from imagining innumerable insignificant tiny changes to lifeforms. It would have been better for him to admit, as he did with regard to the evolution of intelligence, that he could not account for changes in lifeforms that introduced new very complex biological meaning. Changes of lifeforms do exist, but, even the simplest imagined change is highly complex contrary to what some might think. They exist because they were provided for right from the beginning of the Universe.

    Why claim this to be true? I don't make use of convenient, unjustified, latter day miracles added on after the origin of the Universe. The latter day introduction of givens of theoretical physics is unacceptable science. The fog of complexity may remain, but, physicists must give those equations that lead into the fog that show the beginning of intelligent life. The properties of theoretical physics will never be able to do this until theoretical physics sheds itself of its self imposed ideology of a mechanical universe that knows only about pushing and pulling inanimate objects. For an explanation of why human intelligence could not result from the continuous miraculous introduction of new meanings into the Universe after its beginning, please read this essay.

    James Putnam

    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

    James,

    Thanks for your kind message on my blog. I agree Stevens essay was excellent. I also strongly recommend Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri's essay if you haven't read it and have time to see & rate it. I've just rated yours as I'm now off to bed (00:40) and have an long early drive (a well earned 9 this year out of interest).

    I hope yours is a finalist.

    Very best

    Peter

    Dear James

    "None of the physics properties have any potential for the existence of intelligence"

    Not directly - physics is a product of intelligence, a set of intellectual tools directed at dumb nature, if you will, to pry its secrets. As such it would be superfluous for it to backtrack to rediscover its maker, as it were.

    Another check of your world-view is to ask if computers are or soon will be intelligent. If so, they are entirely the product of physics and mathematics, transistors, electrical circuits and signals manipulating binary arithmetical algorithms. Dumb nature is suddenly not so dumd!

    Do not mind me - you have a right to your feeling of wonder and joy at humanity's gift of consciousness and ability to wonder at our glorious Universe.

    Vladimir

    Vladimir,

    Your essay will receive a high rating before the contest closes. Agreement isn't necessary at all. I appreciate reading your opinion. My response is that it cannot be established that there is separation of the intelligence of physics' tools from the nature that gave rise to it. The potential in full had to already be provided for. This may sound creator like. It matters not whether it sounds that way or not. I follow where empirical evidence leads. the empirical evidence is that we are formed from parts of the Universe according to the properties of the Universe. There is nothing new added into the mix. If that was the case, then we would have evidence for the existence of miracles.

    Computers will never be intelligent. They will always mimic intelligence. When I ask a computer to add 2+3 and it responds that the answer is 5, all that has happened is that electrons have changed places either moved to inputs to transistors or moved away from inputs to transistors. The computer is forced to display a meaningless figure and it is done. Only the observer can attach meaning to that figure of 5. Even for a computer that currently adds numbers, as it does when plotting the integral of a function, and does so far, far faster than a human ever will, it is doing something that we don't do. We do not add. We either remember the sum of 2+3=5 or we must resort to counting. Another important missing function of intelligence, for computers, is the use of emotion.

    If it wan't for emotion, we wouldn't know the difference between a sensible thought and an insensible thought. Every conscious thought is a conclusion that was reached subconsciously after our subconscious mind searched for the best meaning to fit with patterns that our subconscious mind decided probably exist in the wildly mixed storm of photons that bombard us from innumerable sources. That mix is arriving as innumerable tiny increments of information about particles located throughout the Universe changing their velocities. They are arriving at the speed of light in formations that are never repeated.

    From that storm we very quickly discern possible patterns and find meanings to fit with them. Just one of the things our subconscious mind does is it draws a picture of what it has concluded we should be seeing. That conclusion is presented to our conscious mind. Its conclusion is sometimes wrong. That is why optical illusions work. Even when we know that the conclusion is wrong, our subconscious mind continues to draw its own erroneous conclusion and we continue to see the wrong picture.

    Too much said right? :) Please look forward to a high rating for your essay.

    James Putnam

    Dear James Putnam

    As you are already aware, I have an acute appreciation for your work. I genuinely believe that you have recognized the inadequacies of the way our physical units of measure have been formulated, and that the number of disparate units in our employ can be whittled away to but two indefinables. I think this has advanced the conventional approach, and has enabled you to obtain a clearer vision of physics and relativity. I am convinced that your approach to unifying the units of measure, and your descriptions in and around your "light field" conceptualization, are going to closely resemble the future of scientific method and understanding. You might not be widely recognized for your achievements at this time in history, but I have to believe you will be in time.

    My believing of this makes you stand out like no other in my mind. And I believe that with the right people around you to help develop the conversation, what I have come to realize will become evident to more people. It is essentially a very simple message to convey, so I will do what I can to help you in this endeavor.

    Thank you for your support in helping me to understand so much, and also for supporting my essay.

    Kind regards

    Steve

    James,

    Thanks for the comment and thanks for your rating. You were the stake in the vampire's heart.

    Jim

    PS Glad to see you came up in score.