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

Hi Marcel-Marie LeBel

"The universe, on the other hand, is not made of "experience". The universe is made of some "stuff" that exists and constitutes the domain that underlies our reality." Is the way for the real search for Reality My dear Marcel-Marie LeBel................ very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reading my essay also.

Hence 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

Respected Marcel,

Thank you very much for your kind words and for reading my essay. Yes Bhilai steel plant gave me time, food, house and medicines to me and my family, you are exactly correct. You people like FQXi heard me, allowed me.... I am not rich man, I used to carry my wife on my bicycle on the back carrier for the first three years in my job in steel plant. Getting books in physics and Mathematics was one of the very expensive and difficult things for me before availability of internet, they are not available in steel plant library...

By the way, Photons are energy only. They are not locked in any specific time period I think...

More photons means a brighter beam. power (Energy/sec) is proportional to the number of photons/sec.

Photons with shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies have more energy. That is a bluer beam has more power.

So P=nhν P=nhν where n is the number of photons/sec.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165757/relation-between-number-of-photons-and-energy

Lets further discuss...

Best regards

=snp

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

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 must consist 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

Hi Marcel,

i also hear him shouting... but only a few are listening...

Now I had the time to deeper explore your essay. I enjoyed reading yours, but had to re-read it several times, especially for the questions-and-answer part. But finally I grasped what you intended to say.

Also for me, reality is deeply rational - in the sense of reasonable. Although every human being is equipped with logic, only a few beings are rational enough to aks the questions you did in your essay. This sheds a pessimistic light for me on some assumptions that purport humanity to be in an evolving state of knowledge and self-knowledge. But anyways, your statement

"If "something" does not make any difference whether it is there or not, then it does not exist."

is brilliant. In this sense, every human being makes a difference, be it to the good or to the worse. In my own essay, I tried to exclude such moral questions, but I nonetheless think that they are very important.

I would go so far as to say that existence really originated from 'nothing', but with the small print that it is only our physical existence and that the one that has power over 'nothing' must be some creator. Since this creator should have some free will - otherwise it would be just a *mechanism* - and he guaranteed his creatures some free will too, one can explain the 'emergence' of our phyiscal world as a conscious decision of those creatures to be separated from their creator.

But leaving these teleological aspects aside, your essay is one of few that head over heels jump into the fundamental questions and come up with a fundamental explanation that seems to be fundamentally necessary to at all make some scientific sense out of it all. Since your appproach is in my opinion drastically underrated, I try to help putting it where I at least I think it belongs amongst the other contributions.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

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

Lousy editing.

Your essay is a good question, not that I'm asking one.

galaxies would seem to be cosmic convection cycles

as civil, cultural, economic forms push in, giving structure and stability

Rereading this, I should be going to bed. Sorry for the streaming consciousness.

(Consciousness past to future. Thoughts future to past.)

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.