Thank you for reading my essay.

It is my opinion that exist, for example in jurisprudence, for each population and for each historical era an optimal jurisprudence body (or equivalent jurisprudence); the interaction of the laws with the population (a statistical point of view) permit to obtain, in long time, the optimal jurisprudence body; with little modification of the jurisprudence and observing the effect on the population.

It is my opinion that is not so different from Physics, in this case the experiments are on the population, and the change are ever possible with the change of population opinion: it is not a dynamic law, but a statistical law that constraint the ethical dynamic of the population.

Regards

Domenico

I have a problem with the real minimum simplification of the knowledge to a minimum information: the standard model is huge, is complex, so that the current knowledge have not the minimum information; it seem that the reality is more complex than we think. However, is there the possibility of a minimum information of the standard model? I am thinking that there are infinite Lagrangian that have the standard model like a low order approximation, so that a Lagrangian could exist with a minimum number of symbols (a compact form), that is renormalizable and self-consistent in the low order approximation.

Domineco,

So deeply true! I keep fighting, but this is the world of physics where even listening to new ideas is anathema to most with mainstream doctrine embedded.

i.e. I think my essay, with Declan Trails, clearly and irrefutably reveals a very important way ahead for the understanding of nature. It's there for falsification and critique. Few any authority even deign to look let alone criticise. Change isn't in the personal interests of most. That seems a sad comment on the present academic community.

Nice job on yours. I do hope you'll like and score mine.

Very best

Peter

5 days later

Domenico,

You have a great penchant for cutting straight to the nub and expressing key points most concisely. Interesting identification of the concept of the successor, and of solutions as trajectories. I agree the importance of both.

Shame you didn't expand a bit, but there's beauty in simplicity so I've noted yours down for rather higher score than at present.

I hope you'll get to read mine, finding massive value in the most ridiculous simplicity.

Very best

Peter

    Hi Domenico, (copied from my thread)

    Thanks for looking. The fundamental requirement for all and any matter is identified as 'motion' which is a relative concept. Motion then requires some entity, some time period and a background. Without those there can be no matter and no universe at all! Condensed matter (fermion pairs) is then the simplest spherical rotation.

    I thought I'd got that across in stating it, but then went on to derive how unbelievably powerful that simplest action could be, the mechanism classically reproducing QM, so removing weirdness!

    I'm disappointed but not surprised so few even seem to understand the stupidities of QM and need to resolve them. Ce la vie. Perhaps the solution (Penrose called the 'holy grail) will be lost in space!

    Very Best

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    Hi Domenico,

    First my contestant pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt

    You make a good point very succinctly: There is something about our universe that encourages both the preexistence (in physics) and emergent formation (in language) of "compact description[s] of ... knowledge and fundamental objects."

    Thus your answer to the FQXi challenge question is (I think) that "fundamental" means any mathematical or linguistic description that compactly captures a large body of behavior or knowledge. That is pretty much how I also define it in my essay "Fundamental as Fewer Bits". I just used up a lot more bits -- I was less compact! -- in my essay.

    Structurally, though, the top half of your essay is hard to read and has many assertions that are highly debatable. I think for example that you are trying to say that the ancient concept of defining units of measure (mene, mene, tekel, upharsin comes to mind) is itself an recognition of compact conservation rules, that is, an explicit recognition that certain quantities of the physical universe persist over time without either increasing or decreasing, and so can be measured in a uniform way. But if that is your point, it's hard to extract from the essay

    Also, further down you you make assertions about physics that are very hard to interpret. For example, your essay asserts that the experimentally very well-grounded and readily lab-accessible special theory of relativity has postulates that are "unprovable laws". You then rather mysteriously assert that the general theory of relativity, which is hugely less accessible since it operates more at that astrophysics level, is composed of "physical laws". That is very hard logic to follow, whatever your intent may have been.

    So, overall: I think you have made and excellent point about the importance of compactness to a rule or description being "fundamental." It makes me feel a bit dumb for taking so long to say the same thing in my own essay. But the essay itself, even in such a short form, is tricky to understand and asserts too many things that are at best dubious assertions. That aspect of your essay distracts from your main point.

    And I do I like the boldness of your brevity!

    Cheers,

    Terry

      Finally an effective criticism.

      If the metrology has solved the fundamental quantities, the measure units, then this science is closer to the definition of fundamental, that the contest ask for a science in general.

      The fundamental quantities are obtained in metrology using a set of rules, the definition of units, that are the laws of metrology: so that, for me, the metrology has solved the problem of the fundamental (with only an increase of the precision) with a set of laws: an assertion, for example, that the meter is obtained using an particular experiment.

      The Special relativity assume two postulates: invariant of the physics laws in inertial system and the constancy of the light velocity; these are experimentally true, but an experiment does not prove a theory with certainty, it can only falsify it with centainty. I call these postulates the laws, and these laws can only be falsified, and these laws are true until proved otherwise.

      I wanted to say more clearly that any scientific theory is based on assumptions, foundations, which cannot be proved with certainty, and from which everything descends with the mathematics and logic.

      Thank you for in-deepth reading.

      Domenico

      Ma men,

      It was a gem. Far better than mine in terms of expressing simplicity. good job again

      Joyfully

      Excuse me, Silviu.

      I have other essays to read and vote.

      My time is limited, and I cannot spend too much time on just one essay, I must read another hunrdred: everyone deserves at least one reading, and some at least one good vote.

      Regards

      Domenico

      9 days later

      Dominico

      Thanks for your comment on mine. The fundamental was 'motion' (always 'relative'). Without that there would be NO MATTER (no rotation) and NO UNIVERSE! Is it not then fundamental?

      I then show it's simple power; Simple momentum transfer between spherical rotations producing a CLASSICAL derivation of QM! so unified with the rationalised SR you've agreed with in past essays.

      One quick read isn't enough. Most do struggle to hold the sequence in mind as they 'scan read' but it has 8 stages to reconstruct! I've just put a simple check list on my posts to help. I never think superficial reading passes critical information.

      Hope you get to look a bit closer. I'm applying scores now. I hope you find mine worth a similarly high one, but at least get to understand more from it.

      Very best

      Peter

      I have finished voting for all those who deserve (for me) a high score, a few days ago, in a weighted and correct way.

      I have already finished commenting on those that interested me.

      Any request to vote, or to read essays, is useless.

      Regards

      Domenico