Essay Abstract

I think that each knowledge field have compact fundamental laws.

Author Bio

graduation: mechanical engineering degree: physics thesis: deterministic neural network and fuzzy neural netwoek master: advanced technology in communication and information research: -Genova,fractal dimensionality and experimental discrete equation -Marina di Ravenna, fluid dynamic and bacteria grow equation -Vietri sul mare, fluido dynamic model applied to soil pollution and associate bioremediation -Manchester (interrupted), Natural Gradient Descent and Indipendent Component Analysis

Download Essay PDF File

Good definition of "what is fundamental" as it is applied in the literary sense to all fields.

Domenico,

I am thinking that you have once again presented a minimalist, almost abstract, bit of linguistic art that addresses the essay topic.

Well done.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Domenico

I agree that laws of what were called in the 18th century 'moral sciences' (ie, human sciences) are not going to be derivable from the 'natural sciences', such as physics. They have distinct ontologies and it is better to say so, as you have.

Anton

    Thank you, for the criticism and the reading.

    If body of laws was unmodifiable, I would agree, but I have the opinion that the legal body experiments a continuous transformation, that modify the wrong parts, like a genetic evolution between historical eras; I think the poetry, the prose, the ethics and the technological body have had the same evolution, where the scientific experiment are replaced by the interaction with the historical populations: a body of knowledge that change in an optimal way in the time, to adapt to the population.

    10 days later

    Hi Domenico, I enjoyed reading your piece. It was succinct and very much addressed the topic question. It seems to me that, after the question 'what is fundamental?' comes the next question, fundamental to what, (or to whom)? You make a good point that, (to paraphrase), each subject area has different fundamentals, usually summarized in laws or rules, or such like.

    It has made me think that even considering what is fundamental to a human being depends upon the context of the inquiry. At a social level the answer might be healthy relationships. At a whole organism level it might be shelter, water, food. At a cellular level it might be electrolyte balance and electron transport.

    I like your answer to Anton too, mentioning the way in which laws, which I take to mean specific kind of precise, succinct human knowledge, (not the legal kind), evolve. That they are able and allowed to is, I would say, in itself fundamental (to progress). Kind regards,Georgina

      Thank you Georgina, for reading my essay.

      The sense of the essay is that each object, material or ideal, can be defined by a law.

      If an object is defined by a law, then the observer is defined by a law; and this is the interesting point for me: each physical law have an interaction that constrain the object-observer existence, so that only if there is an interaction there is an object and an observer, in a time interval.

      On the other hand, each theoretical field have building block, like atoms of the ethics: "thou shalt not kill".

      The definition of future objects of physics will be obtained from interactions between observable, through a theoretical physical law that will define the objects, or experimental hypotheses of possible interactions.

      It seems trivial but the existence of objects is defined by our senses, that are subject to fundamental interactions, controlled by laws.

      Regards

      Domenico

      Hi Domenico, I think you are making an important point about the way we know about the world by interacting with it. I would almost agree that, as you say, "only if there is an interaction there is an object and an observer". The observer has to perform the act of observation to be an observer. The perception through the senses of there being an object only happens because of the act of observation. I said almost because I think the differentiation of the perceived object, from an independently existent one even though not itself perceived directly, is important. I think the existence of objects is certainly inferred by our senses, and represented by our senses; and the senses do function in particular ways, describable with 'laws'. However I think definition of objects involves other brain functions. I don't think it is trivial. Georgina

      Georgina, the discourse becomes interesting.

      The dimension of the brain of the observer is not important, for example, a dog observe, but also an ant observe, so that a being with only a neuron observe; but a neuron without axons is a flow of charges, and if the flow is reduced to the minimum then it is a single electron movement: the minimum observation is a photon that strike an atom producing a electron transition: this seem to me the fundamental observation.

      But we are in uncharted territory, so we're talking about opinions, not certainties.

      Hi Domenico, I agree that the minimum detectable signal is a single photon , and that will be absorbed by a single atom. However it seems to me that observation is more than mere absorption of photons, which is happening all around by inanimate objects. there has to be a process beyond that, ,initiated by it that leads to an awareness or output product that is different from the source or input,(as I see it). Then there is a clear separation of the awareness or other product from the source. I realize there is debate about the meaning of an 'observer'. And the exact meaning depends upon context. I'm just sharing my thoughts on the matter.

      7 days later

      Hi Domenico,

      Despite how brief it was, I feel your essay comes closest to capturing the meaning of 'Fundamental'-my own train of thought took a similar path. (My own article will be uploaded now.)

      I think how you speak of not meshing all these fields together and keeping them separate is very astute. What do you have to say about the fundamentality of the fields themselves, however? Can one field be said to be more fundamental than another?

        An interesting question.

        In the field of physics (if my deductions are right), the fundamental constituent are the laws for the interaction between particles; so that, you ask what is the most fundamental law for a physics.

        I have an old theory, and for me, the Einstein field equations are the fundamental laws, and with a small change also become the laws for the electromagnetic field; so that for me Einstein has solved the problem of the unification for gravity and electromagnetism, with a set of equations that describes each field as curvature of the time space.

        The laws for the other fields have the same importance (in each field of knowledge) so that a comparison is not possible: for example, is it possible without a legal structure, or with a tyranny, or with a lack of ethics, or with the absence of art, or without economy, to have a cutting-edge scientific research?

        Thank you

        Domenico

        8 days later

        Dear Domenico Oricchio,

        Short and sweet. Yours is a very succinct summary of laws, from fundamental Lagrangian physics, to firefighter's laws, all of which represent compact knowledge.

        In one of your comments above you say Einstein solved the problem of unification of gravity and electromagnetism. There has been argument as to whether the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light, but the recent detection of colliding neutron stars shows that these are exactly the same speed. I think this argues for electromagnetic waves being stress in the gravitational field, and I touch on this in my essay.

        Interestingly you mention that special relativity postulates are unproven. Since my essay discusses the historical development of these unproven postulates, you might find it interesting. I hope you will read my essay and comment and score.

        Finally, your last paragraph in response to Dwarkesh above is exquisite. It would've been the perfect conclusion for your essay. It's the best expression of complex reality that I've ever seen.

        My very best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Hi Domenico Oricchio,

        Thank you for your nice essay on Fundamental Laws your concept is really nice covering STR and GTR, Probably you may have to limit some knowledge fields or laws or they may go infinite....

        I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

        I also request you to please have a look at my essay also and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

        Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

        In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

        Best

        =snp

          Thank you for posting on my essay

          Your policy is very good that you don't downgrade other entries, I also do the same, i will give good marks or none...

          Thank you for saying my essay is a good essay, and it answers your question also- "What is Fundamental" - it is nothing but Gravitation of the Universe acting on that body at that time... or in other words UGF... the universal gravitation force, instead of just two body gravitation....

          Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

          -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 GR on any condition

          -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

          -No many mini Bigbangs

          -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

          -No Dark energy

          -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

          -No Multi-verses

          Here:

          -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

          -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

          -All bodies dynamically moving

          -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

          -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

          -Single Universe no baby universes

          -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

          -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

          -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

          -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

          -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

          -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

          -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

          -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

          Have a look at

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

          Regards

          =snp

          5 days later

          Hi Domenico,

          Nice summary. I think you made the key points well in less words then some have made them less well. But how do we get laws to evolve correctly, or (in physics) even at all to resolve all the anomalies, paradoxes & unknowns. Do you think the mechanisms in place are adequate?

          As an instance my essay shows, shockingly, that a classical derivation of QM's 'weird' predictions IS possible. Yes it seems what we have may now be to embedded for change.

          Nice concise job.

          Peter

            Thank you, Peter for reading my essay.

            I wrote the essay thinking like a poetry: my first language is not English, so that I must weight every single word (exactly like a poet), but the rhyme is missing.

            I think that the scientific method is the best option for the research, and the darwinian evolutionism of the ideas (through many different minds and artistic ways of thinking) will improve our knowledge of the world through the adaptation of ideas to reality through experiments.

            Thank you to make express me these ideas with a right question.

            I will try to find the time to read your essay, in the next days, although I went to read a first selection of essays, although not many essays have answered the question of the contest.

            Regards

            Domenico

            I want be clearer.

            I think a theory, a legislation, the arts, like an organism with an evolving deoxyribonucleic acid (a code that represent the knowledge) so that the code (the knowledge) change in the time in the real world adapting optimally: if it is so, we must fight to make the change possible listening to new ideas, and criticizing new ideas.

            Regards

            Domenico

            Dear Domenico Oricchio,,

            Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

            All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

            Only the truth can set you free.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

            You are right that every discipline has its own fundamentals. Physicists like to think that everything can be derived from the laws of physics, but that is not the case. You can't derive the rules of jurispudence from physics. Everything has to be consistent with the laws of physics but sometimes more information is added to form new rules that cannot be derived because they are not uniquely determined. Some people have said that more fundamental laws have more information, but this is not necessarily the case. More information is lost than added when going down to more fundamental layers. The most fundamental laws are the ones with the least information and ultimately none.

            Thanks for a nice succinct essay.