Thanks for your kind comments Peter. I will indeed check out your essay. I am glad to hear that more is possible in terms of empirical investigation, and look forward to seeing it.

Best,

Jack

Thanks SNP

Excellent thoughts you provide, I like the totality of your views across all domains. Good luck with your essay.

Best,

Jack

8 days later

WOW -- you do say a lot in a few pages, and the way you do your "idea flow charts" is brilliant. Your essay strikes deeply into the current metaphysical doldrums we have in modern physics and maths. Basically there is no room for the "beyond physics" since science (with maths) claims "everything" as its vantage point with no room for anything else even the "mind" (just about almost). And yes it is all about how B and C are handled -- are we free to "see" what is there or are we "slaves" to our "evolved cognition". Are there really only a prior "self evident truths" just sitting in our "minds" just waiting to be discovered in the way we relate to the "world out there" as in D. And why is falsification of inductive observations the key for us to understand nature. And then why do we feel deduction is "better" than "induction" since it is induction that gets us the "ideas" to do maths and science in the first place. There is something very odd about how we do things and your flowcharts, which assumes a temporal sequence of deductive inferences can be thought of as a "whole story" -- seems to have only inductive inferences supporting D. Maybe I'm looking at it too literally. A,B,C,D then we do some analysis and we get odd inference patterns in A*,B,C*,*-D where * means "nature" made us change our ideas and the minus sign means "our logic made us take it away" -- is that it! Can we take that step away --- what fills the void. Yes QM just might be "beyond" our cognitive skills and we will always have a "quantum of "this makes no sense"" in our science, since it is that "quantum" that makes us US. Maybe is what you are saying using other words (my take on your work at least). Why do we need to interrogate nature for our answers, is it because we think "nature" is totally free of the "mind" or the "inductive" so an inductive hypothesis can be turned into a deductive subject all based on axioms and maths reasoning. It is hard to know how to answer the child who says "How do we know that nature is honest in the first place when we ask it questions about its behaviour" there could be censorship from pillar to post, self-imposed by the mind's evolved cognition systems.

One thing that doesn't change is B our "cognition" but that is supposedly a result of an evolving process which we are still part of, (you kind of assume a fixed reference nexus for B static) in the changing landscape of "what is fundamental". One definition for fundamental is "that which doesn't change", our minds' eye in the flow chart, does change over time, maybe a feedback loop for B, might make point that point clearer -- why B doesn't change.

Is the mind hypothesis based on "induction" or "deduction" inferences. Are the world's fundamental concepts -- a set of inductions or a set of deductions -- very interesting essay. If it was 9 pages long my mind would be too full with ideas.

I have marked you highly (extra credit for being a philosopher we need more in science now to shake it up a bit LOL). Well done on showing us all how to do a short but very powerful essay. Cheers Harri. If you have time I have an essay in the competition as well. What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" where I do a bit of exploring of new outlandish ideas and see how I can put them into one story. The story is what is the "fundamental quanta" which I guess is "the area of the imaginary unit", it is very speculative in scope and reach (maybe too far in places) but it's fun to write an "almost" story sometimes for this competition. Mr H.

    Thankyou Mr H,

    For your kind comments on my short essay. I am glad it got you thinking about how we think and measure reality in the realms of sense and empiricism and their limits. I will definitely check out your essay and hopefully provide some feedback if I can.

    Best,

    Jack

    10 days later

    Dear Jack,

    I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

    It is so close to me. «In this article, I will argue that rationalism (pure reasoning without experiential input) must have a vitalrole when it comes to revealing fundamentals».

    Read my message to the question of the anthology of Vladimir I. Rogozhin https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3001

    I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

    Vladimir Fedorov

    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

      Hi Jack

      I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

      Rate it accordingly.

      If you would have the pleasure for a related and short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

      Silviu

      Thankyou Vladimir,

      I appreciate your comments on my essay and I am glad we had a similar approach. I read your current essay and found your claims on Newton very interesting ( from what I could understand as my physics is not as strong as yours ) and will reflect on them further.

      Good luck with your latest endeavours into nature and truth.

      Best,

      Jack

      Dear Jack H. James , you wrote a good essay, however, it was better if you were familiar with the New Cartesian Physics, where the fundamental is a space which according to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, is a matter and back matter is a physical space. Time is a synonym for universal total movement of the physical space. Thus, no more dualism between matter and space, between mind and body. Consciousness arises when a body appears the ability to create in space the image of the external world and to remember him for discernment and judgment. In the center of this image of the external world is the body that created it and which is actively positioning itself to prolong its existence. Descartes was a rationalist

      New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give your assessment there. FQXi Fundamental in Dizhechko by Boris Semyonovich

      I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

        Thank you, Jack H. James , I'm here to convince everyone to use the principle of identity of space and matter to develop a theory of everything.

        Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

        • [deleted]

        • Post #30

        Hi Jack,

        So much philosophy, so little time!

        My essay has a squadron of pigs doing barrel rolls! With pictures! Do check it out. Perhaps you can change hats and help me with an empirical methodology.

        I did like you essay and I found a YouTube with E.J. Lowe

        All the best,

        Don Limuti

        G'day Jack!

        Criminal Law, eh. There's job security.

        Would you say that your reliance on rationalism is in many ways in recognition that good law is good logic? That morals are to ethics, what ritual is to etiquette? That ritual is assigned to display the logic behind etiquette, so that those whom eschew the ethics of social etiquette might break fewer dishes if they come to dinner? That the Rule of Law, is a logical system of proofs intended to preserve as much as possible, that an individual has equal right as the Law itself to appeal to that system of logic in defense of one's own legitimacy of person, purpose, property, papers and affects (*note Affects). And that the challenge of any good Law Director is to assure that investigations follow strict logical rules of proofs, lest the miscreant have opportunity by council to evade interdiction in apprehension by plea to logical fallacies? And that experimental evidence must be qualified to the skeptical juror?

        Cheers. Toronto John

          Dear Jack,

          (copy to yours and mine)

          Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

          The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

          I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

          Vladimir Fedorov

          https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

          Thanks John,

          Would you say that your reliance on rationalism is in many ways in recognition that good law is good logic?

          What a heavy question! I think 'reliance on' may be wrong words for how I think about rationalism.

          That morals are to ethics, what ritual is to etiquette? That ritual is assigned to display the logic behind etiquette, so that those whom eschew the ethics of social etiquette might break fewer dishes if they come to dinner? That the Rule of Law, is a logical system of proofs intended to preserve as much as possible, that an individual has equal right as the Law itself to appeal to that system of logic in defense of one's own legitimacy of person, purpose, property, papers and affects (*note Affects). And that the challenge of any good Law Director is to assure that investigations follow strict logical rules of proofs, lest the miscreant have opportunity by council to evade interdiction in apprehension by plea to logical fallacies?

          Well logic is certainly a part of good law, but the ethics ought to be the key determinate not logic.

          And that experimental evidence must be qualified to the skeptical juror?

          Empiricism certainly has an important role in macroscopic evidential reality.

          Best,

          Jack

          Thanks Jack,

          I quite agree. And 'appreciation of' rather than 'reliance on', would be more appropriate. I sustain your objection. :-) jrc

          Write a Reply...