,,,"self = (self)" might be the fundamental equation in a hylozoic universe
,,,If the meaning of fundamental depends on the linguistic situation
,,,I hope you enjoy this video-- It's related but different from what I'm trying to say, and perhaps enjoyable nonetheless.
L
https://youtu.be/ugbNh9r0WQo
Hi Lee. thanks for the link to the video explaining hylozoism. I agree fermion particles and all things constituted of them are in motion and so might be described as 'alive'or 'animated' Though not in the same sense as living beings that are characterized by specific activities of living. Emergent activities rather than fundamental workings.The video gets weird for me when it starts talking about telepathy to communicate with 'inanimate' objects. I think the 'animation' of existence is foundational, Those changes to existence throughout the entire universe, whereby foundational passage of time happens, is fundamental.I'd say self is a product of more foundational 'elements' of existence and necessary fundamental happening. Kind regards Georgina
Georgina, "self = (thinking, self)" can be studied as a "coalgebra"--
"The area of coalgebra is still in its infancy, but promises a perspective on uniting, say, the theory of differential equations with automata and process theory and with biological and quantum computing, by providing an appropriate semantical basis with associated logic. The theory of coalgebras may be seen as one of the original contributions stemming from the area of theoretical computer science."
http://www.cs.ru.nl/B.Jacobs/CLG/JacobsCoalgebraIntro.pdf
Probably matter is alive in the universe....Very nice concept Lee.....
Water is mother of life..... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.
I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the 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.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html
I 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/ "
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied
Best
=snp
wow- might take some time
Thanks for your reply. Link doesn't work for me- but I did a quick web browse. Kind regards Georgina
http://www.cs.ru.nl/B.Jacobs/CLG/JacobsCoalgebraIntro.pdf
Dear Lee Bloomquist,
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
Lee, your essay is a bit short and would have benefited from more explanation. In particular the link to the HK video is not explained. Essays need to be more self-contained.
However, there are some interesting ideas here. Your message seems to be that the universe emerges from game theory played between selfs. Is that accurate?
It would have been good to hear more about how coalgebras are relevant. I also think coalgebras are important. They are dual to algebras and together they form bialgebras.
Using non-wellfounded set theory is courageous. They can easily lead to paradoxes.
Yes.
***
Mr. Gibbs,
You write as if you are my assigned judge. Yet as a judge of fundamental physics you make no mention of the two equations in the essay: "self = (self)" and "self = (thinking, self)".
Please consider:
Have you seen these equations anywhere else?
Lee,
A nice change from most. I suspect Thales was right all along about the 'underlying fluid'. I've certainly found a logical consistency.
I'm also a fan of game theory. Are there any new rules for this one?
And I've checked through your equations and can't find any mistakes. I am therefore I think! (I think). I think and hope as an engineer you may like mine.
Very best
Peter
ps. (I claim not to be a robot but is there really a difference?, ...and if so is that not discrimination?)
Hello Peter,
The equation "self = (self)" is an abstract model of Helen Keller before learning the word "w-a-t-e-r". And "self = (thinking, self)" is an abstract model of Helen after learning the word "w-a-t-e-r."
The Born rule can be modeled as a game with rules called Probability Learning, well studied years ago in the lab. I wrote a little about applying Probability Learning to the Born rule for the contest here about math, titled "Simple math for questions to physicists."
Some might be uncomfortable with the "self" in "self = (thinking, self)". For particles following the Born rule, instead of "self" you could use "it"--
it = (bit, it)
This is the obverse of John Wheeler's idea, "it from bit." (Which Ed Witten talked about in an interview available on the web.)
"it = (bit, it)" says instead that once you have an "it", then "it = (bit, it)" means that a particle following the Born rule produces a stream of "bits" from the "it."
In the interview, Witten also talks about the diagram Wheeler used in conjunction with "it from bit"-- an eye with an arrow of seeing circling around to see itself. So circularity seems to be common to both Wheeler's "it from bit" and the non-wellfounded set "it = (bit, it)."
More on applying non-wellfounded sets to game theory is in the book by Barwise and Moss, "Vicious Circles: On the Mathematics of Non-Wellfounded Phenomena."
Lee,
Fascinating. I'll look it up after the contest.
My own essay derives the Born rule and uncertainty mechanistically from the 4 part angular momentum (orthogonal orbital velocity) distribution on a rotating sphere surface.
Do give me your response to that.
Thanks
Peter
Please visit the Wetten interview, equation "it =(qubit,it).
Lee - An interesting start to the essay, but it would have been nice to see the ideas fleshed out. So perhaps we can think of reality as a "fluid-like" medium of fields, with "stuff" being the flowing motion of the fields. However, the flowing motion shows a quality of "agency" - an intentionality at work. The flowing motion shows what - intelligence? - purpose?
Indeed, I think the findings of complexity theory suggest a flowing intentionality is at work - but the truths are hidden from this in the paradoxes of self-identity and recursiveness.....
Regards - George Gantz
Note: Before reading the following, please see the linked text for how manipulations of the text IT=(BIT, IT) produce a stream of bits.-- e.g., IT=(((((((BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT, IT))))))).
***
IT=(BIT, IT) as a way to operationalize John Wheeler's IT FROM BIT feels like a science of simplicity.
IT=(BIT, IT) uses only two "words"-- BIT and IT-- while E=MC(squared) uses three-- "E," "M," and "C." A sign of simpicity?
Perhaps another:
If IT=(BIT, IT) were to become an acceptable model of the Universe, someone in engineering would know immediately that something is missing. Nothing comes for free - every engineering project has a budget, every engine needs fuel. But in this equation for the Universe, a stream of bits seems to come out of nothing.
Engineering would suspect there's an engine, somehow invisible to us, which produces this stream. Further there must be fuel-- again somehow invisible to us-- to feed the engine. And again, by the laws of thermodynamics, there must be an exhaust stream-- again, somehow invisible to us. Because every engine is inefficient and as a result, every engine produces an exhaust stream.
Now replace above phrases like "which is invisble to us" with adjective "dark"--
The engine that drives the stream IT=(BIT, IT) is made of matter. Dark matter.
We call the exhaust stream-- which escapes to expand the Universe-- dark energy.
Take one equation; apply the laws of thermodynamics; its a story of dark matter and energy.
When IT=(BIT, IT) these two enter the picture immediately.
Lee,
Yours shouldn't be last! My score going on now.
Best
Peter
This is a learning process. My latest posts are in the threads on alternative models of cosmology and alternative models of reality.