Marcel,
Thank you for the comments. This sounds really interesting: "I submit that only a dynamic process can come from nothingness, without failing the primitive rule of non-contradiction." Nice word choice, "spark" :)
Best regards,
Cristi
Marcel,
Thank you for the comments. This sounds really interesting: "I submit that only a dynamic process can come from nothingness, without failing the primitive rule of non-contradiction." Nice word choice, "spark" :)
Best regards,
Cristi
Hello Cristinel...
I am a tenacious advocate of a minimum unified unit of fundamentality... i.e. unity "germ"... and I find your insightful exposure of scientific dogma, cognitively refreshing.
Fundamental logic of the geometry "bench model" can be obscured by the alpha and/or numeric artifice of the semantist and/or equationist, but an operative CAD/SIM supports no illusion... i.e. it is a virtual reality not a theory.
That is to say that, it makes no difference which "geometric algebra" is applied, if the graphical spatial coordinate geometry upon which the mathematical constructs are derived, does not resolve a unified minimum unit of Spatial quantization (QI), no spatial unity "germ" can be verified.
To digitally simulate/animate the concept of Indra's net "cast in all directions"... i.e. an origin emission equal in all Spatial directions from a single point... requires resolve of an Origin Spherical Singularity Geometry, which supports infinite minimum unified volume unit shell closure expansion, as a valid CAD environment/field quantization.
REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php
UQS as a an Equal Qauntization Quaternion CAD environment... i.e. 6 axis... Space/Energy/Time/Info model addresses deterministic concerns by the fact that all subsequent distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) must be resolved for the entire field in a manner consistent with emerging system intelligence (AI), on each pulse of the emission, and a minimum unit of Time (QT) is inherent in a continuously pulsed emission.
Thanks Cristinel, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.
Will return to rate after I read as many essays as I have time.
S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com
Hello Sue,
Thank you for reading and for the comment. I'd like to come back to what you said after I read your essay, to have a better understanding. Good luck with the contest,
Cristi
Dear Cristi,
I read with great interest your deep, comprehensive analytical essay on the problem of fundamentality. You also give very important ideas that give direction to the way out of the crisis of fundamentality, the creation of a holistic picture of the world for physicists and poets.
Good luck!
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for comments and reading the essay. I'm looking forward to read yours, as always!
Best wishes,
Cristi
Hi Christi,
I read with much pleasure your exellent essay. I am going to study further on the mathematics you indicate because your conclusion :
"So the state of the universe, including the germs at all the other points of spacetime, is encoded in the germ at ach point of spacetime. Not only the field, but also spacetime itself emerges from each germ." is the conclusion that is one of the outcomes of my own conrtibution "FOUNDATIONAL QUANTUM REALITY LOOPS" and I hope that you will find some time to read and rate it. I don't mention the holographic model but also agree with Sontag, that "Time exists in order that everything doesn't happen all at once ...(in my Total Simultaneity) and space exists so that it doesn't all happen to you."
Thank you for making me think again
Wilhelmus de Wilde
Dear Cristi Stoica,
You wrote: "The universe is rich in complex phenomena and situations of infinite diversity, yet somehow we seem to be able to understand it to some degree, at least partially, in terms of a small number of laws and concepts."
My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical 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.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
Hi Wilhelmus,
I am happy you enjoyed reading it, and I appreciate your comments. I look forward to read your essay, especially since you point out that our essays have so much in common.
Best wishes,
Cristi
Dear Joe Fisher,
Glad to see your comments here. From what you wrote, it seems that we share the idea that there is only one unified thing that is fundamental, even though maybe they don't look the same.
Best regards,
Cristi
I wrote the following on mt blog area in response to your poar:
This quantum hair would show up in BMS supertranslation symmetries. I have not worked out more detailed calculations of this. In fact there is a vast amount of work to be done here. In working on foundations I offer here the prospect for some measurement or observation of what might be deeper foundations.
Of course in the end there may be no final foundation, or if there is such a foundation I suspect it is basic quantum mechanics. We might be faced with the prospect of finding layers of effective theories with respect to quantum gravity. The reason might be that quantum gravity is similar to the measurement problem and might involve self-referential encoding of quantum states. The issue of the quantum error correction problem I offer a solution involving complementarity between quantum and spacetime principles. However, this might just mean it ends up in the same conundrum as quantum measurement. Ultimately it involves quantum states encoding quantum states. Turing and Gödel rise to the occasion to tell us we can never completely understand this.
Cheers LC
Hi Lawrence,
Thank you for the interesting details, I find this indeed difficult and needs much work. I wish you success with this research in the following!
Best wishes,
Cristi
Cristi,
Another good piece of writing taking an interesting and, so far, unique approach. I agree and share the Christian Huygens and Bill Unruh (to an extent) approaches. Certainly relative motion through and with respect to some medium (whether condensed 'matter' or not) propagates more quanta to re-quantize signals - the effects, consequences & implications of which is what my own essay explores & identifies. (You'll see non-integer spin is also physically derived!)
We don't agree on all things but rightly agreement is NOT a scoring criteria. Yours is well considered and written, and also an interesting approach. I particularly agree the last p9 line and my work focuses on that.
Well done. Up to your usual standard and provisionally down for a high score. I do hope you'll study and discuss the conclusions of mine.
Very best
Peter
Peter,
I appreciate your feedback, and I look forward to see your essay (especially to see how you got non-integer spin). Good luck with the contest!
Best regards,
Cristi
Dear Cristi Stoica,
a very interesting essay, thank you for sharing it! I appreciated very much your analysis of Relativity of fundamentalness ("We can regard points as more fundamental, lines being just sets of points, or we can regard lines as more fundamental, points being the meeting points of lines", it's a wonderful example). My essay has many points in common with the first part of yours.
I've not fully understood how you consider this relativity only epistemological and how Holographic fundamentalness can escape such a relativity, but sadly I've not the mathematical tools to evaluate the final part of your essay, due my formation in philosophy.
Thank you again, all the best,
Francesco D'Isa
Very profound contribution; pointing to holistics as fundamental structure makes great sense, esp. to better approach the universal laws of harmony in matter and living matter.
Dear Cristinel Stoica,
thank you for this thorough and insightful essay. It is clear and well written.
I have also written an essay that have some points of similarity with yours, showing to some extent the limit of intuitive reductionism. I therefore appreciated your quantum holism. I would be grateful if you also give me your opinion on my ideas.
A major difference that I see is that I feel that relying too much on the mathemantical structures, we could fall into conventionalism, devoid of empirical content.
While waiting for your kind response, I have (already some days ago) I rated you the best.
I wish you success with the contest!
Best wishes,
Flavio
Dear Francesco D'Isa,
Thank you for your comments, and for pointing me to some points that may be of interest to me in your essay. I look forward to read it.
> I've not fully understood how you consider this relativity only epistemological and how Holographic fundamentalness can escape such a relativity, but sadly I've not the mathematical tools to evaluate the final part of your essay, due my formation in philosophy.
I don't think this relativity of fundamentalness is only epistemological, I think it is the fundamental key. Holomorphy is not meant to escape epistemological fundamentalness, by contrary, it is the logical end where you arrive by taking seriously the ontological fundamentalness, if the final equations that we will eventually find have this property. If they don't, I think holomorphic fundamentalness is at least a way to grasp this idea that the ontology itself is relative, which is a feature of all mathematical structures, because of the isomorphism I mention. Thanks again for your comments,
Best wishes,
Cristi
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to arrive at your contribution, and I wish you success in the contest!
Best wishes,
Cristi
Dear Flavio,
I very much appreciate your comments. I noticed your essay, and I hope we will discuss soon more, since there are some very interesting points you two made.
> A major difference that I see is that I feel that relying too much on the mathemantical structures, we could fall into conventionalism, devoid of empirical content.
Well, here may be more to discuss. If there is something I trust in this world, there are two things, one being mathematics. I think that the universe is mathematical, in some sense that I discussed in a previous essay And the math will set you free. But I am fully aware of two things: that our mathematical models are not well understood and most likely they are not that mathematical structure that I say is the universe, and that there are limits of our mathematical reasoning (not of mathematics itself). I detailed these limits in my last year's essay The Tablet of the Metalaw.
I agree with you that "relying too much on the mathemantical structures, we could fall into conventionalism, devoid of empirical content". But the problem is that we don't rely enough, in the sense that modern theoretical physics is made of patches of mathematical models. The most interesting parts are revealed when there are inconsistencies, internal, between our models, or between our models and the world, and it is there where I think we should dig most (I focused a large part of my research on such inconsistencies, such as the singularities in general relativity and the apparent need of collapse in quantum mechanics. And in finding better models for particles than the conventional ones). If we look back, we see that the novelty in physics is due to pushing our mathematical models to their consequences. This either lead to their rejection, or to novelty and unconventional. For example, the inconsistency between the symmetries of electrodynamics and Galileo transformations led to special relativity. GR was even less conventional, and is full of empirical content. QM, starting from a couple of experimental hints that showed inconsistency with the classical models, led to this rich quantum world as we know today. Both GR and QM are the highest unconventional, and they are indebted to mathematics. But I would say the way to hell is the same as the way to heaven, and this is mathematics. When people went for perfect mathematical consistency and simplicity, they found radical new ideas. When they went for patching the world with models, or for complicated Rube Goldberg machines, we ended in the current crisis. But this is inevitable, since we don't know the ultimate model, and we try what we hope it is, so there is a large pool of models to explore, but by the end we will throw most of them away and keep the one model (or a bunch of isomorphic ones) which is the accurate description of physics, without deviation from the empirical data. That's why I think we should do it, but with much care, and never trust a model which has inconsistencies, internal or wrt the experiment.
I look forward to read your essay, and I wish you two success in the contest and your academic careers!
Best wishes,
Cristi
Dear Cristi,
you raised my curiosity more and more. How holomorphic fundamentalness can take seriously the ontological fundamentalness? Can't be itself relative?
You write that, "If this will turn out to be the case, then the information about the whole universe is encoded at each point, in the higher order derivatives of the eld at that point. So the state of the universe, including the germs at all the other points of spacetime, is encoded in the germ at each point of spacetime. Not only the eld, but also spacetime itself emerges from each germ". Are your germs (or "points") something like Leibnitz monad's (they are quite similar to Indra's myth, after all). Is the ontological relativity you are talking about similar to Nagarjuna's?
Excuse me for my questions, I can be very wrong since I can't evaluate your mathematical proposal.
bests,
Francesco