Thanks Chandra for reiteration your positions relating to the details of wave supeposition and the mind etc. - depending on our models we may be talking along the same lines ... or not - I could not decide which at this moment. More power to you.

Vladimir

Dear Sir,

Your reference to the questions about the nature of mass is important and timely. QM and its extensions are wandering to solve many problems, but without any direction. The various competing theories and interpretations impede progress. One such area is mass, "evolving from material content in a body to the assembly of stable elementary particles, representing "pure energy" in some form (m=E/c^2)". If you look at our ancient concepts, they insisted on three complimentary characteristics of matter, energy and perception called Tama, Raja and Sattwa, which coexist everywhere and cannot be separated fully. The determining character is dominance of one over the others. Thus, energy confined as mass, which is evident from your notation: m=E/c^2. Here E is confined in an area represented by c^2 (otherwise m will continue to increase per every second, which is contrary to observation) to provide a density gradient, which is mass in that context. Similarly, when mass is moved and inertia overcome, it is called energy. Everything in the universe is in a state of perpetual transition. This transition is perceived as mass or energy based on their degree of dominance.

In a previous paper in this forum (REASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS), we had shown that the usually accepted views of Wigner and Gödel are questionable. The success of mathematics can only be attributed to "using strictly logical language of mathematical relations, set as cause-effect relating equations", as you put it. For this reason, we have pleaded for Physical Mathematics instead of Mathematical Physics in our essay this time. You also appear to agree when you say: "The limits in our discovering the ontological rules behind the biospheric and cosmo-spheric evolutions are not due to the equations alone; but from what input and output physical meaning we assign to the starting mathematical symbols and the connecting operators".

You are right that "the Cosmological Redshift is definitely not a Doppler Effect". But concluding that it indicates expanding universe may not be correct because of several reasons: 1) our observation in cosmic scales are insignificant, 2) blue-shift and galactic mergers have been observed, and 3) expansion is seen only in larger scales of galactic clusters and no less. If we look at everything from atoms to stars and galaxies, the universe may replicate the solar system with galactic clusters as planets around the Sun. This will imply a closed universe, but some cosmological models propose this also.

When you talk about "the '+' operator now implies real interaction between the particles followed by real energy exchange, followed by physical transformations (changes in excited states)", these do "give rise to measurable data if it happens inside a human constructed apparatus". However, we think there are some missing parameters we are not considering sufficiently. These include the "nature and source of the operator" and "what is an electron", which points you have also raised subsequently in the essay.

Regarding biological evolution, "the perpetual evolutions towards higher and higher forms of biological species" is a debatable proposition. What is meant by higher and higher? Evolution of intelligence within a species has not been proven, though there is an hierarchy with humans at the top. In fact, we are becoming more informative and less intelligent. Since "viruses and the bacteria just started evolving out of the inanimate atoms and molecules to the living species", they have not changed and are the same they used to be before 3.5 million years ego. There is plenty of literature, which discuss Desire, Belief, Faith, and Hope in depth. There is also much literature about mind and its functions, which are mechanical in nature and about which we have replied extensively to Dr. R. K. Singh's post in our thread.

Regarding Dark Energy and Dark Matter, you must be aware of the mismatch between theory and observation, which differ by a factor of 10^120. This is called the biggest mismatch in history. Though it has been narrowed down to 10^55, it is still too big to make a claim for a "theory". You have clearly demonstrated the deficiencies of the modern approach. Your modified approach and conclusion: "to incorporate the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) in physics" is significant and needs follow up research. We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.

Regards,

basudeba

    Dear Basudeba:

    I appreciate your positively inclined comments. Thank you!

    I am a hard-core experimentalist. You appear to be a thoughtful theoretician. It is obvious from your very carefully written essay. We have a major commonality that modern physics has deviated from seeking ontological reality. The transformation would require forming new-dedicated research group. Interested?

    My approach to seek the "truth" could be different from yours and others in details. However, this is a healthy requirement for humans to keep on advancing their understanding of the universe without staying stuck in anthropomorphism. This is a bit sad because over two thousand years ago Plato gave an allegorical story to remain critical about things that may appear to be a "sure thing" to eyes. The story could be described as limitations of "Cave People Modeling outside World from Shadows Cast Inside". The shadows are our modern data. That is why I proposed incorporating Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology to emulate the Indian allegorical story, "5 Blind People Modeling the Cosmic Elephant". This is a superior instruction compared to that given by Plato. It provides path towards reality even though the data (shadows) does not directly allow access to the reality. The concept is buried into the story. Although, individually each blind man draws, correct, but almost laughable model for an elephant; when they sit down together to find conceptual continuity between each other's observation while imposing the logical congruence utilizing the over-arching knowledge that it is a living animal; then their model tends to converge towards an elephant-like animal! Therefore, I have proposed that: We now have to keep on iterating all working theories by challenging the foundational postulates behind the original theory.

    I will address to your specific points another time. You can go to this web to download many of my papers, including some on cosmology, Doppler Effect, Fresnel drag experiment, etc.

    http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

    My re-discovery of Non-Interaction of Waves is profoundly important to re-shape physics. Wave-particle duality is destroying physics. It is resolved in my book, "Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves" [low cost paperback is now available].

    Feel free to contact me at chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu, if you want to discuss possible collaboration.

    Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

    14 days later

    ChandraSekhar,

    That was so great I read it twice! I pulled off sentences I really liked, but I seem to have much of the essay! Lets just say I agree and applaud about all, and, shockingly, have some mega breakthrough answers you'll love to test. See some of the recent blog comments too, and the video links.

    I hope you get there in time to score it too! Yours was going to get a well deserved 30 but apparently I could only give it 10! Sorry for that.

    Very best.

    Peter

    Peter: I have read your article. It is a scholarly article with strong bent towards intellectual logician. We have both agreements and dis-agreements. I can learn a lot from you; which means we can collaborate and complement each other, if you want. Chandra.Roychoudhuriatuconn.edu. You can also download some of my selected papers from http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/. Specifically, I would suggest down load the paper "2014.2". It explains my methodology of thinking in more detail.

    "At present we're wandering in the dark. We do know physical motion and interactions exist, but we won't know if any algorithm is correct

    until we fully understand the mechanisms."

    AGREE.

    My methodology of thinking is that we must implement Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).

    "Our brains themselves are part of the system as part of the observer."

    DISAGREE.

    Human brain is only the interpreter. It is physically separate and independent of the data-generating instrument where the interaction processes are going on (invisible to us; and that is the problem. Counter example: Unless, of course, you are analyzing your own brain. Say, you inside an fMRI machine and interactively trying to interpret the images while the images are dynamically changing as your logical brain is WANDERING to find the intellectually most pleasing solution.

    Again, thanks for writing an excellent article.

    ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri

    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

    Dear Chandrasekhar,

    With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating. Excellently written.

    I agree with you

    «This will help us become better innovative engineers and solve problems that enhance our survival goal while ameliorating threats to sustainability of the biosphere. Hence, we should adopt evolution process congruent thinking into our current mathematical epistemology.»

    «My proposal is to incorporate the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology ... in physics thinking to empower the prevailing ... approach.»

    And I tried to implement it.

    I wish you success in the contest.

    Kind regards,

    Vladimir

    Chandrasekhar,

    I believe your MDM-E approach might incorporate my idea expressed in my essay of a field-level speculation regarding the nature of dark matter and perhaps allowing discoveries like the supervoid challenging orthodox views arising from the CMB.

    I interpret you statement: "We must consciously promote more frequent challenges to our working theories, whether meant for Nature Engineering (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), or Social Engineering (politics, economics, religions, etc.) to assure that we are not getting trapped on our old success rut that have become incongruent with our sustainable evolution." in this manner.

    I would like to hear your views on my essay concepts.

    Regards,

    Jim Hoover

    Chandrasekhar,

    This is probably the most important goal of the contest, to share ideas. Ratings are secondary.

    Jim

    Yes, Jim:

    This is an excellent platform to meet deep thinking people from whom we can learn many new things and identify our own personal biases.

    Chandra.

    Chandra,

    Enjoy your travel. Hope to see you next time.

    Jim

    10 days later

    Chandra,

    I posted the reply below on the 7th in response to the copy of the above post on my string. I haven't yet had a response to my request (on your linked page -as below) for a copy of the 2014.2 paper you suggested. If you can't find my request please send it here; pj.ukc.edu@physics.org I greatly look forward to reading and discussing it.

    Very Best. Peter.

    COPY OF 7.4.17 POST;

    Fantastic, thanks. (Chandra.. Raman was a hero of mine).

    Yes, I agree. I'll have to check the context of my 'brain' comment as I've pre agreed your description. See; fqxi 2012 7th. to see how it matches up.

    I've also hit your link and the 2014.2 button, (live here); www.natureoflight.org/CP/

    Anybody reading this please look at Chandra's essay and score it up as it really should be a finalist!

    Empower Mathematical Equations Using Evolution Process Congruent Thinking.

    I'm away at a wedding this weekend so I'll read 2014.2 and we can talk next week. I'm sure I have much to learn from you too.

    Very best of luck in the run-in

    Peter

    Write a Reply...