The Logical State of What Underlies our Reality by Marcel-Marie LeBel

Dear Marcel,

„I think that consciousness, somehow, represents one step further, the exploration of a system outside or partially free of the rule of non-contradiction?"

Exactly. But not in the sense of a logical contradiction, but in the sense of emotional contradictions. I assume the rule of non-contradiction as valid in all realms. An emotional contradiction would be to act towards another being in a way that you wouldn't want for yourself. That's an emotional contradiction and contradicts an emotional law.

Since I doubt that everything is facilitated by formal systems and accompanying laws of physical causes and effects, I take such non-physical laws seriously (if one can at all speak of 'laws' as something made of 'stuff', of physicality).

"The Casimir experiment is somehow the testing of this boundary effect created by "existence" ".

Yes, every existent thing makes a difference. But I think there are also some causa finalis in the Aristotelian sense that exist and make some difference. Explaining how such a causa finalis interacts with some physical 'stuff' is the hard problem, unless one does not re-interpret such causi finalis as 'emergent' properties of some physical stuff.

Dear Marcel,

thanks again for your reply.

Consciousness only seems to be illogical, relative to the assumption that all there is must be exclusively only formal systems.

Causa finali' do exist, otherwise you had to admit that you necessarily had to write your essay due to some physical determinism and change it 14 times. I am sure that very few contestants here believe this, albeit they purport an exclusively deterministic universe and claim otherwise. I am intelligent enough to see this clearly.

Trying to purport a consistent formal system - model - that successfully eliminates the subject is the main goal for many participants, for the sole causa finalis to be well in line with the doctrine of total objectivity. This makes these contests so interesting for me, because they reveal so much information about the individual psychological conditions behind a writer's lines of reasoning.

So, what is purported by most contestants is not about the whole of our reality, but only about an abstract view that tries to eliminate the very tool with which we can come to some conclusions, namely consciousness and a causa finalis. In this sense, these contests are not about seeking some truth, but about seeking a model that fits some a priori expectations (a world without consciousness). As you rightfully annotated, in this sense it is really not about truths, but about some kind of 'fitness' relative to other ideas. Taking the concept of fitness as a fundamental for human condition may have some short-termed advances individually, but globally it will lead to the destruction of the concept itself, since the concept depends on certain well adjusted environments, not only natural environments, but also human-made environments.

Humans should see this more clearer, since they aren't anymore just animals, they have science, intellect and some individual free-will. But statistically, they behave as if they don't have any of it. They delude themselves in many ways. Purporting the doctrine of total objectivity by eliminating human consciousness makes things worse. It is really all about truth or delusion. Most decide for delusion, because they can't stand the truth that mankind is on a 'happy' path towards self-destruction.

So, in summary, the illogical state of affairs of human consciousness is illogical by the rule that there should be only abstract formal systems that have some causal power. But there are some fundamental truths that aren't formalizable exclusively only by abstract rules, but are concrete emotional rules - and the attitudes towards them created by the individual itself govern a whole lot of what happens in the world!

Best wishes for your further investigations and maybe self-investigations!

Stefan Weckbach

Marcel,

Thanks for your positive thoughts.

The universe exists as a temporal space extending to infinity. Allusions to the 'evolution of the universe for the past 13.8 billion years' refer to conditions where a local bubble (commonly referred to by physicists as the universe) explodes within the limitless universe.

'Stuff' is merely contents. The assumption that 'something (can) be created from nothing' is unreasonable, unjustifiable and unnecessary. Extension of the realms of energy and matter to infinity (though miniscule in volume proportionate to the whole universe) is equally plausible. Energy and matter simply change forms from one to the other from time to time under favourable circumstances and will continue to do so into the infinite future.

The man-made so-called Rule of Non-Contradiction (RNC) is at variance with our perception that all natural phenomena have opposing counterparts; as up is to down, hot is to cold, etc.

'Rules' are man-made for the purpose of simplifying our perceptions of complexity.

Indeed I question whether the universe has any 'rules' at all since rules are absolute and demand strict compliance. A more fitting term would be 'principles' that enable flexibility either side of the norms, necessary to resolve mutual effects arising from the impact of unequal forces.

Indeed contradictions appear to be the mechanism by which the universe stabilizes its otherwise-chaotic behaviour.

Thanks again Marcel. As I am sure you know well; participating in a process (like climbing a mountain) is much more significant than achieving a goal. Good luck.

Gary

Marcel,

This is a very straight forward question. May I propose a simple thought experiment?

What if reality could be explained in terms of a dichotomy between energy and form(information)?

Consider that after a few billion years of evolution, we have a central nervous system to process information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy.

Consider that galaxies would see to be cosmic convection cycles, of energy radiating out, as form/mass coalesces inward.

Consider that society is organic and social energies pushing out, as civil, cultural, economic forms push ignoring structure and stability to these social energies.

Now our minds function reductionistically, given we are bombarded with massive amounts of information carrying energy and would mentally white out otherwise.

Naturally we desire the information we extract to be as clear and precise as possible. Unfortunately, the underlaying energy tends to make it fuzzy. So what do we do? Try to eliminate that fuzziness, by studying ever smaller and more precise details. Eventually convincing ourselves it is all information, all the way down. Obviously the dichotomy enables and encourages this, because we create form by quantifying the energy. When the wave crests, we know its amplitude and when we measure the rate, we know the frequency, but does that mean a wave is only amplitude and frequency, or are we overlooking something?

When you consider this relationship between form and energy, given the energy is conserved and thus always and only present, the effect of time arises from its dynamical changing of configuration. Thus energy goes from past to future form, as these forms come into being and fade, future to past.

Which is why we only know the past, as it is information, but if we want to understand the future, we better study the energy.

Causality is not so much emergent from this, as descriptive. It is not so much the energy being transferred from one event to the next, but energy creating these events in the first place.

Basically then, energy is the medium and information is the message. Which argues against any platonic math, as that would be message without medium.

Consider the dimensionless point, as an example. Logically it doesn't exist, because it is a multiple of zero, but insisting on some infinitesimal dimensionality would be getting into that fuzziness our desire for clarity seeks to avoid, so we are willing to accept a teeny tiny contradiction to get away from fuzziness. Thus information, without physicality, as platonic math.

If we get away from all physicality, no more waves, just a flatline. Zero. Void. No information in the void, though.

So if we are looking for fundamental and don't want or like the flatline, then it's waves and troughs.

Heartbeats.

As much as Tom Ray and I have argued over the years, I had to give him a ten for that. Probably been exploring mortality a bit much.

Regards,

John B Merryman

Mr. LeBel,

Indeed a very nice logical journey, and I think further words are useless

Read and rate it accordingly

If you would have the pleasure for a (very) related essay, I will appreciate your time.

Silviu

Dear Marcel-Marie,

It is nice meeting you here in FQXi again.

Thank you for your elegant and inspiring essay. It deserves highest estimation.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss on fundamental issues with... Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Hi Marcel...

Your FQXi Topic:1928 post of Aug. 30, 2017 @ 00:19 GMT caught my attention, and I actually composed a 4 page reply to that post... but it has not been edited yet.

I have now read your essay, and will get back to you with commentary... but I wear all hats on the UQS project and am now in a code phase... i.e. absolute focus mandatory to progress.

In the interim, I will reference you to UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Therein, I think you might identify parallels in our motivation... i.e. "A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the "how" side of physics helping us stay in line."... if not our resolve.

Thanks for sharing your insights and providing opportunity for our exchange.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

WWW.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Marcel...

Please note: My post have been truncated by the FQXi system without option to "view entire post"?... but I log all UQS Social Media and Forum commo online.

REF:UQS Social Media and Forum Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

INTRO:

Being precise in one's application of language and decisive in directives, can indeed polarize a poll and diminish an essay's deserved recognition, but if grant of FQXi forum recognition should be taken seriously as an insight to momentum for theoretical physics directives, determination of recognition should not encourage emulation of a political campaign process in which it behooves the candidate to apply imprecise language and be intentionally ambiguous.

Therefor I greatly appreciate your effort for clarity, and whether in agreement with your assessment or not, in that your final analysis is conclusive... i.e. "A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the "how" side of physics helping us stay in line"... I applaud your essay.

Having participated in the FQXi 2017 "What is fundamental? essay read and review process, I observed considerable momentum for your directive, and a majority concurrence that no-resolve of the ambiguous state in which theoretical physics has found itself, is not an option.

It so happens that I am, and have been for more than half of my 68 years, in agreement with your conclusion, and for the last 20 years have pursued derivation of logic systems, formalized as digital mathematical/geometry structures... i.e. visually verifiable CAD environments... in which to analyze our current understanding of the "how" side of physics, utilizing digital 3D SIM operations... i.e. 3D animation techniques.

Specifically, Unified Quantization of a Singularity (UQS), was developed as a digital structural/geometry model to formalize a logic system in which minimum units of Spatially defined Energy (QE) can be derived, for digitally simulating pulsed distribution of QE, equal in all directions from a single point source.

I do understand that epistemological and/or ontological implications arise from such.

In open forum communication, attempting to linguistically address epistemological and/or ontological implications, without verifying prior assessment by all communication participants, as to the ability of the specified mathematical/geometry model to visually verify a participant's understanding of the applied linguistics, may obfuscate the significance of the model.

On the other hand, not responding to epistemological and/or ontological issues can impede acceptance of the model.

That being the case, to minimize the risk of undermining the value of a minimum unit of Energy (QE) per minimum unit of Space (QI) approach to verifying mechanisms of Energy distribution, I will reference all epistemological and/or ontological inferences herein to the highly CAD illustrated UQS Project available online at UQS Project Virtual Home http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

In that a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable, provides no means to verify logic statements, I will also, for the purposes of epistemological and/or ontological discussion, insist that speculative logic can not be applied to a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable.

SUBSTANCE AND PHENOMENA:

In that phenomena, as what is experienced/sensed, is distinguished from the substance in itself, a logic kinematic chain from substance to phenomena may be difficult to verify.

Whether or not the current standard interpretation of E=mc^2 reflects Einstein's intent, is arguable, but current standard interpretation does indeed promote the notion that "Energy is phenomena and mass is substance"... i.e. mass sufficiently accelerated releases constituents of mass as phenomenal Energy... but without an understanding of the quantum functions of the constituents of mass as the participants in the event, all that can be inferred is that a measureable Energy Event... i.e. Energy as phenomena... perceived as motion, occurs over measured area of perceivable effect, and Energy as phenomena cannot exist without motion.

If Energy is motion, what are the constituents of mass?... i.e. what exactly distinguishes mass from Energy??

Equally arguable with regard to Einstein's intent, but in line with 10K BC Vedic Science in which Einstein was most likely familiar, if we say that minimum units of Energy (QE) are the "single unified substance" of our model, then the fundamental constituents of mass are QE, and as is visually verifiable on Pulse-8-Close of the UQS Emission SIM, E=mc^2 can facilitate the notion that mass, as comprised of choreographed entities of our "single unified substance", recursive bond within the mass, can be impelled to release the bound, allowing the imperceptible QE within the mass to interact in a motion-event... i.e. Energy-phenomena... measurable in terms of human perception... e.g. coulombs, watts, waves, bang, etc... and Energy as substance can exist without motion... i.e. as potential motion.

However, if we do say that QE is the "single unified substance" that comprises the Spatial form of a mass, then we must developed a mathematical model that deals with Energy in terms of Spatial containment...i.e. a minimum unit of Energy (QE) must be Spatially defined by a minimum unit of Space (QI)... which neither conventional mathematics nor Vedic mathematics has resolved.

WHY?:

If the observer refrains from application of logic statement to a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable, and process cause can be inferred from process result, then Energy distribution is the cause... i.e. Energy distribution is apparent as the result of the emergence process.

A SUGGESTED APPROACH:

Develop and verify a mathematical model that deals with Energy in terms of Spatial containment...i.e. a minimum unit of Energy (QE) must be Spatially defined by a minimum unit of Space (QI)... and facilitates assignment of both inertial and inert properties to Energy as the "single substance", before applying speculative logic.

Where to begin the mathematical model?

In that logic requires perception of a differential... i.e. 2 bits or more... differentiation as a dynamic process from which knowledge/logic emerges creates an inherent knowledge boundary, which suggest differentiation as the fundamental principle underlying all subsequent Energy emergence and distribution.

How to expand the mathematical model?

In that Energy distribution is apparently being spontaneously, harmoniously, resolved, one has reason to suspect an Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) is inherent in the differentiation process, and a continuous pulsed emission facilitates expansion.

I also suggest that a "formalized logical system" implies CAD/SIM.

THE ORIGIN: CREATION, NOT ASSUMPTION:

"It is not that something is being created from nothing, it is that undifferentiated potential information is being differentiated as minimum units of Space/Energy/Time/Information" ~ sl FQXi Essay

In that perception is the ability to differentiate between two bits, a state in which no differential is perceivable is unknowable... i.e. upon differentiation the knowable system boots. REF:UQS Origin Singularity Emission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4 ... 6 sec. CAD/SIM

Perception is required as means to evaluate logic statements, and logic differentials... e.g. something/nothing, prior/subsequent, background/foreground, etc.... produce ambiguity, when applied to a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable.

Can "before" differentiation exist?

We know differentiation, therefor we can logically perceive a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable... i.e. a field of nothing... but we can not apply logic to determine properties of that field, to include properties of its existence.

Time can not exist "before" time is differentiated?... and if "before" time can not exist??... then time has always been???

If one refrains from attempts to apply logic to a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable, the conventional, if not formal, logic differentials between process, substance, and phenomenon... i.e. process yields both substance, as a product of process which exist independent of process Temporal comparative, and phenomena, as a product of process which can be experience/sensed but do not exist independent of process Temporal comparative... can be maintained... i.e. process is differentiation, not the substance being differentiated or the phenomena being experienced.

If cyclic... e.g. UQS pulsed emission of QE... the pulse count of the fundamental process of differentiation facilitates a minimum unit of Time (QT), and although the fundamental process pulse count, as a variable associated with the process, defines the Q-tick of the quantum clock, pulse count does not exist independent of experience of process... i.e. Time as the pulse count of the fundamental process as differentiation is a phenomenon, not substance.

Interval time associated with any subsequent cyclic event... e.g. atomic phenomena, heartbeat, etc.... is an event logicon associated with phenomena.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field the entities that emerge as a consequence of the differentiation process, and exist independent of process Temporal comparative, are the "single substance", and are of uniform geometry.

That is to say that if the fundamental process as differentiation quantizes Space by Energy, then Spatially defined Energy is the "single substance".

EXAMPLE OF A LOGICAL OPERATION:

Logical operations are performed on an entity... e.g. a process entity, a substance entity, a phenomenon entity... and precise definition/terminology of the logic intent and minimum unit properties of the entity which the operation is to be preformed upon, are required, if one expects to verify intent of operation successful.

That is to say that, a logical operation can be not be preformed on a given entity if minimum units of entity properties do not correlate to terms of the logic operation.

To verify terms of the operation are applicable to minimum unit properties of the entity being operated on, an emergence analysis... i.e. subsequent to "boot" of knowable system... is required, and I herein attempt a formatted linguistic presentation of such an analysis utilizing the UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field and emergence model, but I highly recommend, for a more definitive analysis. one reference the CAD visually illustrated version... i.e. UQS Emergence Analysis http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php .

Pulse-1-Open:

- 1st. logical operation= differentiation of Space by Energy which yields:

>>> Substance... i.e. the thing itself as:

Spatial form= quantization geometry of Space by Energy which yields:

>>> substance logicons= unified unit of geometry, coordinate location, vector direction, and count

... to define Spatial Energy form with which Origin pulse Energy quantizes Space and becomes substance

... to provide Spatial components for subsequent Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) logic operations... e.g. push

Note: Substance as minimum units of Spatially defined Energy (QE), is intrinsically inert in any one frame of an ICS resolved field state...i.e. QE occupies fixed QI

Note: Substance as QE can be operated on by the fundamental process only during the ICS Open/Close cycle... i.e. substance move operation an option on each Q-Tick

Note: Substance as QE exist as Spatial entities w/o dependency on Temporal comparative... i.e. are not phenomena

>>> Phenomena... i.e. experience of process as:

event= Temporal dependent product of Energy quantized by Space which yields:

>>> event logicons= differential comparatives between 2 field frame configurations.

... to define Time as process sequence count... i.e. minimum unit of Time (QT)= Pulse-1-Open Pulse-1-Close

... to provide Temporal component for subsequent Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) logic operations... e.g. next

Note: no Spatial logic component associated w/ QT... i.e. Q-clock Time is the same anywhere in the field on any given pulse count

Note: in that a minimum unit of Time (QT) is indivisible, no determination of Pulse Open/Close interval can be made and must be assumed constant

>>> Available Intelligence... i.e. process mechanism emergence as:

information= process expansion options by logic inference which yields

>>> Information logicons= CAD environment elements, default logic operations, and subsequent inferred logic operations

... provides CAD environment default logic component for subsequent ICS logic operations

... defines and constrains mechanix options available for Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) resolve of QE/QI... e.g. recursive repeat

Note: repetition yields Energy distribution, by Fundamental Process as differentiation of Space by Energy

Note: Spatial and/or Temporal logic components may be required for any given logic operation on information... i.e. minimum units of entity properties must be

compatible with terms of logic operation.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field, the fundamental differentiation process, as the quantization of Space by Energy, yields Information in terms of Space as minimum units of Spatial field quantization (QI), minimum units of Energy (QE) as defined by minimum Spatial unit (QI), and minimum units of Time (QT) as pulse count of fundamental process.

Therefor logic operations... e.g. repeat... can be preformed on process, utilizing visually verifiable units of QI, QE, and QT, which greatly reduces the potential for illusion.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field, substance as the Spatial form of Energy, occupies Space and can exist independent of process Temporal comparative, and all conventional logic operations... e.g. accumulate... in UQS spatial coordinate terms, can be preformed on substance.

Minimum Spatial units (QI) can accumulate QE as event potential, and subsequent to quantization by Energy QI can exist without any QE occupancy, but any requirement by a logic operation for a Temporal component... e.g. accumulate over time... must be derived from specified event logicons.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field, event logicons... e.g. rate, relative position, etc... are properties we associate w/ an experience of the fundamental process... i.e. their existence is comparative dependent and thus do not exist independent of Time... and logic operations performed on events must have a Temporal component. A spatial component may also be required dependent on logic operation to be preformed.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field, knowledge as the QE/QI state of the field which is required by the Intermittent Calculation State (ICS), is derived from environment analysis, but is Temporal dependent... i.e. is not substance... but logic operations performed on QE/QI field state may have both Spatial and Temporal component requirements.

LOGICAL SUBSTITUTION: AN EXAMPLE:

If no valid mathematical framework can visually verify a logic kinematic chain for the substitution, substitution of a variable specified in interval Temporal units... e.g. associated with rate of change... by a substance entity of unresolved minimum units... e.g. mass... is subject to illusion.

Conventional logic operations may utilize Temporal and Spatial components... i.e. rate of evolution... and assuming your linguistic application of "place" is referent to location on a rate graph, rather than a Spatial coordinate location, the perception that "time flows from place to place" could be valid, but With reference to the above UQS emergence analysis, logic substitution of Q-clock time, by an interval time referenced to evolution of a substance or event, or vice versa, is invalid unless an unbroken Temporal logic kinematic chain from Origin to event can be verified.

QT process pulse count has no Spatial logic operation component, has increasing magnitude, but no Spatial direction, and is a constant throughout the field on any pulse count.

If the process generates Time independent Spatial substance ... e.g. minimum units of Spatially defined Energy (QE) which have both inertial and inert properties... logic substitution from "place to place", in which "place" is linguistically applicable to the Spatial domain, will require a Spatial coordinate component... i.e. assuming "form" is Spatial, it requires geometry to substantiate your statement: "If a form exists in one place within the logical system, then, that place is taken by logical substitution".

That is to say that, in the UQS model an initial evasion of the Spatial component... i.e. geometry... introduces a broken logic kinematic chain if geometry is subsequently required to substantiate Time "flowing unequally from place to place" in the Spatial domain.

May the above linguistic convolution demonstrate the necessity for a visually verifiable mathematical model, to precisely verify linguistic application.

THE CAUSE:

"The life and form of effect is the activity of cause." ~ B.T. Spalding

From the essay content I can not clearly distinguish "cause" from "why", but in any case, one can infer either from result, or one can conclude result not intent of "cause"/"why".

DISSCUSSION:

As eluded to in the above intro, UQS does not invalidate E=mc^2, but it does alter the current conventional interpretation of E=mc^2, and many of the postulates in your "Discussion" can be addressed in the same manner.

However, until agreed designation of a mathematical/geometry model that can visually verify our common understanding of the applied linguistics, I do not think it would be an efficient expenditure of our time, for me to do so.

In regard to your expressed requirement for "A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the "how" side of physics helping us stay in line.", I herein submit the UQS CAD Environment and Emission SIM for your evaluation. REF:UQS Project Virtual Home http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

I am currently in the design/code phase of an app. to test validity of the UQS CAD unified field geometry, by Energy Emission SIM.

Having coded the differentials, conditionals, and sequencing for the UQS 3D CAD Environment, facilitates Cartesian codec output to any generic Cartesian CAD/SIM Engine, for manipulation by the Cartesian Engine's 3D spatial object operations.... e.g. the UQS QLab/Game environment module can name, spatially define, and output any UQS Spatial element as Cartesian coordinates required for any generic Cartesian CAD/SIM Engine object detection operation, from Origin to specified emergence.

Hope this year to get a window for continued development of the SIM interface, ICS mechanix module, and AI module, as per CAD illustrated UQS Quantum Lab/Game Design Format http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSDB.php

SUMMARY:

Given the language confounds as discussed by Paul Butler in his essay The Fundament of the Fundamentality of What is Fundamental, in all fairness to Sir James Jeans, Mario Livio, and others, who claim that what is "fundamental" is unknowable, it should be noted that without designation of a mathematical/geometry model that can visually verify a resolved singularity that inherently provides a logic boundary for support of any "fundamental" quest... i.e. "fundamental" is a differentiation from "not fundamental"... application of the term "fundamental" is easily obfuscated.

Utilizing a model which resolves differentiation as the boundary condition, we can know that a system with no perceivable differentiation has no "fundamental"...i.e. the condition can NOT logically exist prior to emergence of a 2 bit differential... and we can "stop digging" at the Space/Energy/Time/Knowledge Origin Singularity.

Although there can be NO logic support for "fundamental" before a differential emerges, given a valid structural model of the Origin Singularity and subsequent emission mechanisms, we can derive all knowledge subsequent to differentiation.

To know/evaluate what is fundamental requires an information system, and in the UQS system, all knowledge lies within the framework of Space/Energy/Time... i.e. the quest for knowledge is bounded by Space differentiated by Energy over Time... and fundamental minimum units of the "single substance" QE, as a consequence of a "single fundamental process", are indeed knowable... i.e. emerge as knowledge from the fundamental process of differentiation.

Although the UQS geometry environment is a valid resolve of a unified field Space/Energy/Time/Knowledge origin singularity, the successful correlation of the mechanix derived from QE emission w/in the UQS environment, to observation, is required to validate it as the mathematical model you, and others, have expressed a requirement for.

CONCLUSIONS:

"The conclusions at which man arrives in his calculations depend upon the foundation or principle from which he moves." ~ B.T. Spalding

Although I will stand and cheer the FQXi forum team for developing and maintaing a highly effective worldwide virtual "think tank", the FQXi administration's top choice in the 2017 "What is fundamental? essay contest, is indicative of the current ambiguous state of theoretical physics, as addressed by many of the essays submitted... i.e. the winning essay, Fundamentl?,is in its final analysis, inconclusive.

In line with current academic media spin, the winning essay author, a recent PhD recipient in quantum information and foundations from the University of Cambridge, promotes "objective chance"... i.e. phenomena of undefined participants?... as justification to undermine any requirement for "fundamental" pursuits... e.g. reductionism, initial state analysis.

Then just short of declaring "fundamental" meaningless/non-essential, the author capitulates over the "fundamental" significance of the atom, thus diluting prior exhibited confidence in the "objective chance" directive with which the author had negated the wisdom of the long established and often verified precept that whether one acts from a true or false knowledge of principle effects the success of the application of the knowledge.

If it is "the existence of the regularity and not the specific form that we particularly needed to explain", then fundamental may "not matter", but if one hopes to have results forthcoming that are consistent with one's fundamental nature, knowledge of fundamental principle is essential, and it is my conclusive expedience, that one who acknowledges self as comprised of a "single substance" which is spontaneously, harmoniously, resolved by the Cosmic Computer's Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) on each Q-Tick, is far more likely to self- heal than one reacting to the phenomena of one's "chance" condition... i.e. "I am that" is essential to the "Zen" of quantum mechanix.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com