Peter, you are moving the goal posts. You were asking about in your words "WHY Alice appears able to change Bob's results instantly from 3 light years away". Now you are saying "Problem is there's NO assumption that Bob 'already has' any result!." Which of course makes the first inquiry redundant. As I have been saying, to paraphrase -there is no result before the result and that puts classical realism out of the game.

Thanks for your explanations of your work. I do grasp that the difference in the particles pre-measurement is not in spin, spin being the name giving to the different response to the magnetic field upon measurement.

I don't have a problem with the characteristic of the behaviour, measured as wavelength, being affected by change of environment.

Re. potoreceptors: The energy of the photon which is directly proportional to frequency, either is or is not sufficient for chemical change of the pigment.

If you don't mind I'd like to leave it there is this is getting away from discussion of my essay. Regards Georgina

Id, Bio and Geo would probably do as prefixes. That they are being used to segregate populations, as a part of the species or not, need not be included, just mention somewhere. Eg. 'Biological segregation was used to define the species'. Where identification using a particular classification scheme is used, which one could be mentioned along with the statement that Identification segregation was used to define the species. That would seem to clarify matters. Other way of separating out species and not species, by behaviour springs to mind (that is, individuals would not meet or would not mate together because of behavior differences, despite biological reproductive compatibility and geographic overlap of territory), could just be given another different prefix and appropriate explanation. This allows 'species' to be retained for practical purposes such as analysis of populations and communication but without ambiguity. No need for a singular definition. Georgina

Georgina,

Thank you for your kind words. Your essay clearly dispels what is not relevant in you "heap of assumptions," and mentioning right off the necessary foundations. I like it that you mention "vulnerability" is fundamental in that failed theories can serve as stepping stones to further discovery, stating that even Darwinian evolution can be re-examined using epigenetics. This is well-stated.

Thanks for the good read.

Jim Hoover

'Habit-species' would work for the behavioural variant mentioned.

Some other variants Mus-species, known only from collections, whether museum or private, and Foss-species, known only from fossil remains thought to be extinct. Which will probably also be special cases of I.d.-species.(I meant I.d., for identification, in the earlier post not Id). I have come across 'fossil species' being used. Georgina

Dear Georgina,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

    Hi Joe, 'what is fundamental?' is is very open question. There isn't just one answer to it. It depends on how the question is interpreted and where the focus of attention is directed when answering. It is interesting to read lots of different viewpoints and kinds of presentation. I do not find it surprising that there are diverse opinions.

    I have read and commented on your own essay, tying to give both positive feedback and suggestions that might be helpful. I have no more to say about it. I would like to keep this page for discussion of my essay and the subjects I chose to consider. Georgina

    Georgina--

    Your essay is quite interesting and I enjoyed reading it, but I do have a few (hopefully constructive) criticisms and comments. I will be very interested in your response.

    If I understood your approach here, you are trying to eliminate as many presuppositions based on present knowledge as possible, so as to build a sturdy foundation (pun intended) for a description of reality grounded in essential notions. If I've understood correctly, that's where my problem comes in, because you frequently (and quite reasonably) need to invoke a variety of concepts (fermions, EM waves, etc.) that are firmly embedded in the presuppositions that you have previously jettisoned. This happens more subtly in other ways too, e.g. you talk about potential energies, which only have meaning in the context of trajectories through space and time, but also wish to eliminate space and time as necessary concepts. I guess another way to say this is that it's difficult to think about these issues in a manner similar to the pre-Socratic Greeks when we now have the kind of understanding that we do.

    Please let me know what you think about this point, including any misunderstanding I might have about what you are aiming to do in the essay. As I said, it had a lot of points of interest, and I share your ideas about having a firm empirical grounding for concepts.

    --Greg

      Hi Gregory, thank you so much for your question. I am not trying to eliminate as many presuppositions as possible but to put modes of thinking about the physics that aren't compatible or would get in the way of thinking about my own proposition. For example Newtonian time is put aside because I am not suggesting a return to use of Newtonian time although I am suggesting a uni-temporal (same time everywhere), sequential time.

      Reading through the essay the physics that has been put aside is replaced by alternatives that take its place. For example very early on fermion particles are seen as differentiated parts of the base existence. Later on electromagnetism is explained as a particular kind of disturbance of the base medium. Also very early on in the essay foundational time is introduced "Change together with existence provides foundational time, which is the changing configuration of the 'Object universe', that is, the pattern and substance of all concurrent existence, at all scales."

      After talking about electromagnetism I point out "The above list of differences between products of EM processing and the fermion based sources of electromagnetic radiation should make clear the need to differentiate them and not treat 'the seen' as the external material existence.This does mean that as well as the seen, there are unseen sources. " This is a differentiation that was not done in the formulation of Relativity. Resulting in a category error and cause of the paradoxes.The space occupied by the content of the visual product is not the space where the physics of the external material universe is happening. So you see why "Block time and the space-time continuum; Parents of paradox" are put aside at the outset.

      Later in the essay there is discussion of the nature of the space where things are happening. The difficulty of relating to it as a human being and how it can simplified to be made comprehensible.

      You wrote "it's difficult to think about these issues in a manner similar to the pre-Socratic Greeks when we now have the kind of understanding that we do." Yes, that is why the heap of assumptions is put aside at the beginning to make room for different ideas, and avoid confusion by trying to use new ideas in the wrong context.

      I am providing an alternative explanatory framework.It overcomes the incompatibility of Relativity and QM, and dispels the paradoxes. As well as addressing the measurement problem, by explaining that measurables are relative, not sole properties; and measurement is imposing a viewpoint or procedure that outputs a singular limited fixed state or value. The fundamental forces are also unified. Perhaps with all of the above in mind the essay will be more approachable.

      Kind regards Georgina

      Dear Georgina;

      I like your style; you really have put together the best ingredients for an "Universe soup and sandcastles". You have touched all the fundamental aspects necessary for discussing what is fundamental, and have put yourself for so doing in the right position (universe centered instead of human centered approach). But a good cooking requires not just the right ingredients, but the right recipe (right quantity and right moment and way of adding together all the ingredients).

      Adding some formalism to your essay would have made it great. Yours has what mine lacks (mine is arid). The way I see it, we complement each other. In my essay I start by establishing the general concept of "Fundamental". Then I summarize an epistemological critique of the practice of theoretical science, where it is demonstrated the inadequacy of the ways science constructs the fundamental concepts for studying the fine grain of reality. Afterward I propose an expansion of the scope of physical science to include the aspects of reality that cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Then I discusses the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develop new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental.

      The interesting thing is that we both discuss the same aspects of reality but with different methodology. I hope we in the future we could put together the two parts.

        Wowow Georgina Woodward!

        Wonderfully matching essay with mine... Thank you...You visited my essay very early and gave a nice comment even!

        Your words "Selecting foundational time and electromagnetic radiation as fundamental, to the working of the Material universe, and the perception of "the universe" respectively. My dear Georgina Woodward !!!!.......... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity. I am giving the full appreciation... By the way

        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

        Hi Diogenes, thank you for reading and for your appreciation of the essay. I take your point about lack of formalism, I could have made it more obvious. I have put a paper giving some of the background in the additional page, appendix and reference section.

        My aims were; to write something that was an easy, enjoyable, read, addressing the topic and the program of which the competition is part. I also wanted it to be an advance on ideas already expressed not just a reiteration. I really wanted to emphasize the differences between seen or measured and existent unseen, relevant to understanding what is happening in the physics considered by Relativity, and considered by QM.

        The 'Sandcastles' section is about how we ought to regard science that has been superseded or dis-proven. Including continued value of the scientific method, when not previously dis-proven science is shown to have been wrong. In anticipation of inevitable changes that have the potential to be used to discredit science itself. That vulnerability to failure is its strength, and in my opinion needs emphasizing. Allowing adaptation in the light of new knowledge and thence progress.

        I have taken a quick look at your essay and notice there are similarities. I hope to comment on your page. Kind regards Georgina

        6 days later

        Negative results in science are not well enough appreciated. Wrong ideas that could have worked need to be ruled out. This is not a form of failure. Your "vulnerability is fundamental" message explains this nicely, and I think it has a double meaning. Our own vulnerability in the universe is also fundamental to the way the universe works. If life was not vulnerable there would be no evolution. Natures wrong turns with life also have to eliminated.

        Thank you for the different and thought-provoking perspective

          Georgina, sorry for a last correction, but "classical realism" is ONLY put "out of the game"! by QM not assuming a 'pre-result result' for Bob. John Bell discusses that at length.

          The 'goalposts' are set in stone as I show there IS a 'measurable' which would be the same if measured a bit sooner or later, BUT; that quality; ('same' or 'opposite' momentum, i.e. polarity) is REVERSED if Bob's detector field is reversed. That's the key.

          On 'simplicity', if there is no rotation, i.e. no 'motion' then there is nothing! No particles, no matter, no universe! ..Maybe rather fundamental then?

          Very best of luck for yours.

          Peter

          Dear Fellow Essayists

          This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

          FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

          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 Philip, thank you for reading the essay and commenting. I'm glad you appreciated the part about progress in science. I hope that it is a useful way of thinking about it, that can be used to defend science. Which seems more important than ever with recently apparent anti-science attitudes in popular culture and US government, in particular. Even huge changes can be seen in a positive light and not as failure of science itself.

          Hi Joe, I do not know why you think you are being treated unfairly. Your essay has been accepted into the competition and is on public display. You have had a number of comments left.I have noticed that Philip Gibs recently left an interesting question about it, showing that he has made an attempt to grasp your meaning. You are not bottom of the community ratings. There are now a huge number of competition entries. The competition process is what it is, imperfect for everyone but better than no competition. We do at least have the chance of getting our ideas more widely read than on the FQXi community pages alone. Georgina

          Georgina,

          Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have rated yours on 1/19. Thanks for your kind words about mine.

          Jim Hoover

          Dear Georgina,

          Sorry for the late fulfilment of my promise to read your essay.

          "Nothing can arise from nothing" interesting point of view. However if Nothing=Everything then the glass is not half empty but half-full...so not dull at all.

          "More here less there" this remark is maybe the origin of the existence of entropy. The goal of entropy is an even distribution of energy. I think that maybe consciousness is the counterforce of entropy because it is the creator of fluctuations. (irregularities, disturbances). Like you say "All forms of energy are kinds of change, and potential energy is the stored potential for change.". The forms of energy you mention are also irregularities submitted to entropy.

          "Without the continuation of existence spread over time, there is only unitemporal simultaneous existence of all existing things" here you are touching my Total Simultaneity where time and space are non-existing dimensions.

          What are you meaning with "Uni-temporal Now's"? Is this the same as the Eternal Now Moments from my earlier essay? Is it possible to implement such a "unit" and with what reference?

          "Information obtained from signals arriving at the observer sense organ etc..." Indeed we are only aware of signals from events from the PAST (see also my essay). Our experience of what is NOW is a jigsaw of signals from all pasts that we can become aware of.

          "The Earth/near Earth is at the centre of the entire Visible universe and the entire Observable universe,...." I would prefer to say the "Subjective Simultaneity Sphere" of an agent (with different lengths of radius) is at the centre of the agent's reality. The greater the radius the more overlap of SSSs of agents.

          I liked very much your (a little bit too reductionist) essay Georgina. We have lots of thoughts in common, but also there are differences. But it is as you say:"The value of the failed hypotheses, theories and methods is not limited to their certain in-correctness. They might act as cautionary tales for future scientists working in that subject, or be seen as interesting historical works of high intellect, or mathematical beauty." If you see all these thoughts brought together in this foundational contest, there is a lot of richness. I rated your essay UP (7)right now and hope that you did it already for me also.

          Best regards and good luck

          Wilhelmus de Wilde