Peter thanks for reading it, much appreciated. Thanks for the questions. I will try to answer them but don't know if they will meet your approval.

1. wavefunction: My proposition is that measurables are not sole properties of the particle under investigation but relational. All of the measurables are indefinite prior to imposition of the viewpoint or interaction that produces the singular state or value is applied. So wavelength, energy and so on are relative measurements and not absolute. I do think if something works then it's OK to use it, even if the way in which the model functions is not exactly what is going on. If it is kept in mind that it is a kind of mathematical analogy rather than the way the universe really is and is functioning. Including that there isn't really another space in addition to the universe where superpositions are, and there are not Many worlds, other universes where each different way of looking exists. The different relative perspectives are all within the one universe prior to selection of just one.

2. Frequency (and therefore also wavelength) is another relative measurable. The frequency of the light as it meets the receptor is dependent on that relation. Following on from above. Yes it ties in with the Doppler effect. I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

3. I think if I was only to talk of motion it might give the impression that I was only considering kinetic energy. There are many kinds of energy with their own characteristics and I think 'change' better encompass them than motion. Though yes, I suppose, the different kinds of energy do involve motion. I'm not convinced that it is better. Motion involves questions of position and location and distance, (and timing) which leads onto what kind of space are we talking about, and how should what is happening be accurately defined.

4. I think that Bells inequalities don't apply because they are based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time but I'm suggesting a different model of the universe. The QM results suggest that something has to give, and that something is that the results have prior existence in the space-time continuum. IE that kind of realism needs to go, rather than acceptance of faster than light communication. As I see it, entanglement correlation is due to imposing the same measurement conditions on the separate particles produced as opposites. The imposition of relative perspective or limiting procedure produces the result. It is not discovering the one and only state or value there could have been, It has no effect on the other particle distant from the one observed. This is possible with sequential uni-temporal time and an entirely open future, rather than the already exiting future in space-time. Which incidentally is also necessary for true agency.

We may have to disagree about the ways in which the universe is strange. Kind regards Georgina

    Peter thanks for reading it, much appreciated. Thanks for the questions. I will try to answer them but don't know if they will meet your approval.

    1. wavefunction: My proposition is that measurables are not sole properties of the particle under investigation but relational. Rather than being singular limited states or values, they can be considered as consisting, prior to measurement, of a profile of states and values that is the aggregate of all states or values that would be obtained form the viewpoint of other reference objects in the environment with which there are relations. As the particle moves relations change and so does the variable profile. The wavefunction collapse pertains to obtaining a singular outcome due to mental reduction of possibilities that will be considered and physical interaction via apparatus or protocol. I don't really understand the question about 'characteristics'. All of the measurables are undefined prior to imposition of the viewpoint or interaction that produces the singular state or value is applied. So wavelength, energy and so on are relative measurements and not absolute. I do think if something works then it's OK to use it, even if the way in which the model functions is not exactly what is going on. If it is kept in mind that it is a kind of mathematical analogy rather than the way the universe really is and is functioning. Including that there isn't really another space in addition to the universe where superpositions are, and there are not Many worlds, other universes where each different way of looking exists. The different relative perspectives are all within the one universe prior to selection of just one.

    2. Frequency (and therefore also wavelength) is another relative measurable. The frequency of the light as it meets the receptor is dependent on that relation. Following on from above. Yes it ties in with the Doppler effect. I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

    3. I think if I was only to talk of motion it might give the impression that I was only considering kinetic energy. There are many kinds of energy with their own characteristics and I think 'change' better encompass them than motion. Though yes, I suppose, the different kinds of energy do involve motion. I'm not convinced that it is better. Motion involves questions of position and location and distance, (and timing) which leads onto what kind of space are we talking about, and how should what is happening be accurately defined.

    4. I think that Bells inequalities don't apply because they are based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time but I'm suggesting a different model of the universe. The QM results suggest that something has to give, and that something is that the results have prior existence in the space-time continuum. IE that kind of realism needs to go, rather than acceptance of faster than light communication. As I see it, entanglement correlation is due to imposing the same measurement conditions on the separate particles produced as opposites. The imposition relative perspective or limiting procedure produces the result. It is not discovering the one and only state or value there could have been, It has no effect on the other particle distant from the one observed. This is possible with sequential uni-temporal time and an entirely open future, rather than the already exiting future in space-time. Which incidentally is also necessary for true agency.

    We may have to disagree about the ways in which the universe is strange. I may not be as "steeped ' in QM as you say, on Declan's page, but I have thought about it. (I'm certainly not singling out QM papers for criticism out of personal fear of QM. I'm sorry that is your perception of me but I consider it nonsense.) Kind regards Georgina

    Correction I should have said 4. I think that the Bell's inequalities argument doesn't apply as it is based on the assumption ...

    There is an underlying notion that the outcome singular fixed states or values exist already, like the colour or pattern of socks, rather than coming into 'being' when the viewpoint or limiting procedure is applied.

    The elephant and blind men analogy is rather overused but nevertheless: singular limited state trunk/hose only exists in isolation when a singular limited 'viewpoint' (I.e. relative to this man") is applied. Same for singular state leg/pillar, singular state ear/fan and singular state tail/rope. Prior to those measurements the elephant unseen has the potential to be measured as any of those states. Yet isn't any of those isolated 'measurement outcome' states. Elephant source un-felt is indefinite as far as the would observers are concerned. There are of course many other potential 'feel-points' that could be taken. So by mentally limiting the number of observers to the traditional ones the possible outcome states have already been mentally reduced.

    I have some papers on viXra that give some thoughts on quantum physics, variables and measurement, and the effect of different perspectives of the universe.

    Is Quantum Physics Really Strange? viXra:1708.0235 ,The Map is not the Territory viXra:1708.0268 , and The Frog and the Swarm of Bees, Different Views of the Universe viXra:1801.0098

    Which are also, I suppose, relevant background to the essay but I didn't think it was necessary to list all papers containing some relevant idea. If you are interested in where the expressed viewpoints are coming from you could have a read/skim of them. Georgina

    It has taken me until now to get to this. My time is a bit chopped up these days. I would say that if I had to parse what you write it is that time and causality is defined in a local sense. You say things occur as a part relative to other parts, which in a way is how gauge theory and general relativity are constructed. A local region has some kinematics of spacetime or of a field, and how that local region meshes with other regions determines dynamics.

    A part of what I maintain, which is an aspect of my essay, is that local and nonlocal principles are dual. This is from how I treat the duality between bulk gravity in and anti-de Sitter space and the field theory on its conformal boundary.

    Cheers LC

      Georgina. Thanks. Interesting. But consider;

      1. If we have >2 identical detectors or eyes at rest side by side in an ambient medium they find the SAME from ALL signals. If one is different, rotated, moved or in any relative motion, THEN, we agree, finding always differ. To me the evidence is clear, 'observer dependence', but does it also agree with the signal having NO measurables pre-interaction!? (does it help to think 'wavefront' not requantized 'particle' PRE interaction).

      2. You say; "I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it." Sorry I wasn't inferring YOU did, I was identifying it's SR that must infer that - as it ignores 1 above. But we're used to describing 'frequency' when it's crucial to remember wavelength lambda is the scalar measurable. On lens interaction we can't compute any 'frequency' until we sent the revised signal (& lambda) up our optic nerve/cable to our processor to calculate against time! Can 'frequency' then be a more fundamental property? Astrophysics only makes any sense by using lambda.

      3. : "Motion involves questions of position and location (same thing) and distance." I see your quest for simplicity, but all 'motion' really needs is some "relative velocity" of anything i.e. WITH some ambient medium or other body. If none exists then consider; NOTHING exists! Is it not worth considering that really ALL 'energy' is kinetic, i.e. motion based. Kinetic just means linear as opposed to rotational. What else is there? Even 'potential' energy only comes to exist once motion starts.

      4.; "I think that the Bell's inequalities argument doesn't apply as it is based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time". Absolutely NOT! QM can't use space-time. One of the main chasms with Relativity is QM's simple 'absolute' time! Yes, I agree something has to give, but 1. above shows it's NOT 'measurables'. NASA & the ISS couldn't communicate with probes if it were! A simpler answer is known to science; wavefronts (& 'particles') have freedom on all 3 (x,y,z,) axis and use it; (thus elliptical polarity etc.) So states vary in all cases except 'side by side', as found. Does that make sense to you?

      So just a couple of key queries. But of course scoring is not about agreement or veracity so no points lost by theory!

      Very Best

      Peter

      Hi Georgina,

      Very beautiful essay. I think it's an important direction you choose, the difference between what is fundamental for humans vs for the universe. And I like how you sprinkled your writing with very illustrative references to Terry Pratchet :)

      Good luck with the contest!

      Best wishes,

      Cristi

        Hi Lawrence, thank you for taking a look. The proposition in the essay is that:"Foundational passage of time is about the pattern of existence, of differentiated parts and about the change. The happening rather than just the static being of the pattern of existence."

        I wrote, "Change is happening at all scales, galaxies rotating, planets orbiting, hearts beating, atoms vibrating. The pattern is always unitary and uni-temporal. The pattern changes more rapidly at the smaller scales but always remains part of a singular pattern of existence. It all remains together, temporally speaking. The rate of change of the pattern in different places is not foundational time passing at different rates. It is the entire pattern, the entirety of existence, that is a time. There is no other time to be at. "

        Meaning, a time is the configuration or pattern of the whole of existence simultaneously. There is no past or future but only that extant version. Foundational passage of time is simultaneous change of the entire pattern. (Spacetime was put in the disregarded heap.)

        People use timing to compare change. It is really comparison of alteration of one part of the pattern of existence against another. The foundational Object universe is uni-temporal. Causality is local but foundational time is universal.

        Non simultaneity of events stems from differences in signal receipt;and pertains to the products of processing. Relativity has been formulated upon a category error that does not distinguish between material objects and products of signal receipt and processing. Trying to highlight the important difference between the categories was the reason for the extensive list in the essay of differences between seen things and objects as they are. Kind regards Georgina

        Peter I'll try to address your points

        1. My proposition is that the measurables are relative and so the relative to what has to be established. Without that its state or value is indefinite. Does that mean the object or phenomenon does not have behaviour unless measured? No. But to say what it is comes with,"says who?',i.e. what perspective or limiting constraint was applied to obtain that singular value or state.

        The measurements are not sole properties but involve relations. I think one argument against hidden variables is considering the measurement values or states belong to the entity of interest. Incorrectly assuming the (to be) observed object or phenomenon needs separate individual states to satisfy each different kind of measurement. Whereas it just needs its one unobserved behaviour. It isn't drawing the correct response out of its bag of answers when interrogated but its behaviour is being judged in a particular way.

        2. Special relativity involves different observer reference frames. The objects seen in a reference frame being distant from the observe must already be the products of processing of received EM signals. That's how vision works. Different observers receive the signals differently producing different products, they are not affecting external reality distant from them.

        The lens is not the receiver, the light passes through, but photo-receptors absorb it. They have frequency range sensitivity. You wrote "But we're used to describing 'frequency' when it's crucial to remember wavelength lambda is the scalar measurable." Are you talking about spatial distance? Re. astrophysics making sense, did you see the appendix? The distance of objects in astrophysics is estimated using brightness of standard candles for comparison, which is intensity not wavelength or frequency.

        3. By 'position' I really meant 'orientation' in that reply. I have written in the essay "Change is happening at all scales, galaxies rotating, planets orbiting, hearts beating, atoms vibrating." All the aforementioned change is motion. That everything is in continual (absolute not measured) motion is a foundational tenet of the explanatory framework I have been working on for the last 10 years.)There is no bias against the term just a preference to use alternative vocabulary in some circumstances. A singular time is a pattern of relations between all of the constituents of the universe. A change to that pattern is a different time. I think that the word change works better to convey that whole re-arrangement rather than trying to convey an alteration involving motion, that is altering all of the relations between the constituents, Even though that is what is happening.

        4. I agree that wasn't well said.

        Einstein wanted to defend spacetime, (thinking it where physics happens.) Bell's inequality violation shows something has to give with Einstein's model. I have been saying that spacetime is not where the physics is happening. Spacetime is the seen product of signal processing. Where the physics is happening is in the kind of space I tried to describe in the essay and the time is foundational, sequential uni-temporal time of the kind needed by QM.

        Anyway the wish list for defending spacetime is local realism (mind independence of measurables), locality (no faster than light communication), and counterfactual definiteness (equal reality of all unmeasured variables). In regard to 1, see reply to 1. above. Even though I am not talking about involvement of a mind I am emphasizing the non independence of the measured state or value as it is always relative. See also my reply Jan. 15, 2018 @ 00:38 GMT, the elephant analogy.

        If the actual limited, fixed state variable, states or values do not exist in isolation prior to the act of extraction then neither do the counterfactual states or values that might have been obtained. That leaves the only remaining requirement no faster than light communication. It should, in regard to this be noted that what is seen or otherwise made known is the product of processing of received signals not the physics that is at the moment of seeing, or otherwise becoming aware, happening. Uni-temporal Now where the physics happens precedes the awareness of it. Which may make it seem in some experiments that things are happening faster than they should.

        In conclusion Local realism and counterfactual definiteness out. Locality in, with the added point about awareness vs happening. I don't agree that non locality has to be accepted. Kind regards Georgina

        I wrote "Einstein wanted to defend spacetime, (thinking it where physics happens.)" It would have been more accurate to have said -'thinking it where physics is'.

        Thank you Cristinel. I found far more great quotes from Terry Pratchett than I could use. I'll share this one. 'Discworld' has its own science.

        "The universe, they said, depended for its operation on the balance of four forces which they identified as charm, persuasion, uncertainty, and bloody-mindedness.Thus it was the sun and moon orbited the Disc because they were persuaded not to fall down, but didn't actually fly away because of uncertainty. Charm allowed tress to grow and bloody mindedness kept them up, and so on." Terry Pratchett. The Light Fantastic (1986).

        It works!- and makes me smile.

        Kind regards Georgiba

        Some interesting point of views.

        The fundamental constituent like the mass of the fermions, but the massless bosons?

        The change and the time connection is a deep connection, and it is interesting: so that the fundamental is the time, or the change; and you write of the fundamental forces, so that you have a heap of fundamental concepts, rather than a single principle; the last fundamental is the scientific methods: "time, mass, forces and methods".

        The method of obtain knowledge is necessary in the scientific world, but I think that the mathematics also have some fundational property.

        A good work.

        Regards

        Domenico

          Georgina,

          Thanks. That makes more sense now and I better understand your view. I agree much but not all. 3 things remain;

          1. Non-locality. You deny it (rightly) but you schema can't explain WHY Alice appears able to change Bob's results instantly from 3 light years away. I've shown there IS a way but it's slightly different to your which you seem locked in to. viz;

          2. Lens If the initial lens field electron interaction is what converts the Maxwell 'far' to 'near' (local c) fields then all becomes logical. Lambda (yes, it's a scalar, so has length in the local frame!) changes. i.e. as the waves 'pile up' on entry as you head into them), then after transmission to a processor we find some 'frequency'.

          3. Intensity is amplitude squared and quite another thing (see Born's rule & Malus's Law in my essay). 'Standard candles' have been rare since electricity! We measure long distances by cosmic redshift. But that's also flawed not what I inferred anyway (or astrophysics requires). There is ALWAYS some local ambient medium rest frame for propagation (at 'c' unless a dense matter medium). Ergo there IS some lambda, it's changed only when it interacts with a co-moving lens (or any fermion field with a new rest frame). Is that not as self apparent as it is consistent with the evidence with thought?

          Once those 3 things are all slotted neatly into place the classical mechanics solution to so called non-locality compatible with your thesis can emerge. I wont repeat how here as it's all in my (& Declan's) essay!

          I hope you're still receptive to different concepts? (so many seem not to be!)

          Nice conversation

          Peter

          Peter thanks for considering my responses.

          1. Your "WHY Alice appears able to change Bob's results instantly from 3 light years away". There is an error in assuming Bob already has a result, a singular, limited,fixed state, outcome state or value, to be changed. The particles are formed having opposite unmeasured behavior. It is not characterized as a singular state until the conditions are applied that only allow a singular state to be found. It does not mean there isn't a behaviour happening, or a singular object. That behaviour or object can be accepted as absolute; not qualified or diminished in any way, i.e. total. and existing independently and not in relation to other things. Whereas the measurables are relative to viewpoint, or way in which a procedure is applied.

          I have read your essay twice the second reading made more sense than the first.

          Hi Peter, the jury is out on your lens idea. From reading your previous work and discussion son FQXi blogs, I realize this allows you to have a non uniform speed of light but always measured at c. My recent thinking has been along the lines that the EM waves are hosted by a medium not empty space and a characteristic of that medium is that it can only transmit the waves at absolute velocity of c; because of what it is.

          Linked:Interesting list and short explanations of measurements. Standard candles and red shift are mentioned as well as evaluation of most luminous of certain kind of star conglomerations Distance Measurement in Astronomy.

          I don't disagree that the EM has a behaviour with a characteristic that is measured as a wavelength, prior to measurement. I think the 'what is the wavelength?' question depends on how it is measured, the relation between the observer and the signal. Not alteration of the wave. I'll think on. Kind regards Georgina

          Hi Domenico, thanks. I think the 'base'existence is differentiated into all the different kinds of existence. The fermions are one particular way the base can be different. I mentioned the fundamental forces are different ways in which the base medium is affected by matter. Photons are also alteration of the base medium but in another different way. Photons are singular disturbances from the change in energy level of an electron. In contrast a disturbance of the medium that is a gravitational field is a whole that is spatially distributed and the division into single particles that are not that whole doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Likewise the bosons that supposedly operate at sub atomic scale. I can think about what is going on as field or disturbance of the medium and division into particles doesn't make more sense. I think the HIggs boson is not a part of nature but an effect caused by the extreme conditions used to detect it, which caused the evidence of its existence. in nature the field isn't divided into individual boson particles. I think the bosons are a part of an accounting system that works with the different kinds of alteration of the base medium. Stemming perhaps from a desire to have a full particle model for everything. That's why the whole 'particle zoo' of the standard model was put aside at the beginning of the essay but not discarded. Kind regards Georgina

          Summary

          Looking at what is fundamental for the majority of physics

          Foundational time, for happening and agency

          EM signals, for perception of 'reality'

          The disturbances of the base medium providing all of the fundamental forces

          What is fundamental for progress in science and makes science adaptable/ able to develop rather than being 'set in stone'.

          Vulnerability of science work

          Dear Georgina Woodward,

          I like that you jump in at the deep end, "shedding a heap of unnecessary ideas about the universe." In fact, your first two, time stretching from infinity to infinity, and block time in the space-time continuum, are the focus of my essay. [Eckhard also has a lot to say about this.]

          I'm with you in assuming only one kind of base existence from which all other kinds are formed. I'm with you on the object universe being at the same time and only time everywhere, i.e., Now.

          After dealing with time, you treat electromagnetic radiation, which I too treat in my essay. In fact, I agree with almost all of your essay. You finally conclude by suggesting that Einstein's relativity can be cross examined. That is what I do in my essay. I hope you will read it and find it interesting. It supports your essay quite strongly. Don't worry about the math. It's correct.

          It is so good to see the sharp edges get knocked off of our models. They get smoother and smoother with every contest.

          Congratulation on a very well written essay.

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin, I am glad you and I agree on some important points about time and existence, On existence; what I have proposed, and you are in agreement, is as simple as possible but no simpler as Einstein recommends.

            I am really pleased to find that you also want foundational, sequential time that is fully simultaneous and without past or future. It is necessary but can not by itself account for all observations in physics. So our views diverge.

            Some snippets from the essay related to the points above:

            "EM produced simultaneously (the same uni-temporal Nows) from an object, or collection of objects forming an event can be received at different times (different uni-temporal Nows) by different observers at different distances from the source. This gives the way non simultaneity of seen events occurs but it does not infer the persistence of material objects in time."GW i.e. non simultaneity of observed events but with no material past (only EM signals originating at those past events ), This resolves the temporal paradoxes.

            .".....................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."GW Not differentiating then is the category error in Relativity. First in SR and transported over to GR with the assumption of externally physically real spacetime. I might say spacetime products are emergent from a process not foundational reality. This understanding makes sense of Barn pole type paradoxes as what is seen is always a visual product and not material object.

            Just because we are both looking at the same theory does not mean our conclusions are compatible. Although you say you agree with my essay from looking at your own I see you do not - but that's OK . We all have our own unique perspectives, notice things that resonate with us and perhaps gloss over the rest. Kind regards Georgina

            Dear Georgina,

            some remarks regarding 'your' conception of time: in wave mechanics (classical and even quantum) the symbol t is a parameter, no metaphysical entity. Its equations describe bodies in mathematical space, which can be known precisely for this reason. That is, in physics (proper) nothing ever 'happens'. The 'things' we know don't happen, they simply are, and whatever 'happens' we don't and cannot possibly know. For example, the individually occurring blackenings on a screen behind a double slit illuminated by low level coherent light are mere happenings (unpredictable events in the future), whereas the shape of the interference pattern is a priori knowledge. What we can observe is our knowledge, not events in time.

            In general, that there is something called historical development from the past to the future ((r)evolution) is a romantic (mainly 18th/19th centuries) idea of historians and sociologists later picked up by biologists. While the concept of natural evolution has meanwhile become dubious in biology by showing that the term 'species' has no empirical equivalent (e.g Hey J., On the failure of modern species concepts, 2006) it is the more surprising that ideas of evolution are thriving in physics.

            Heinrich

            Hi Georgina,

            Good responses. Problem is there's NO assumption that Bob 'already has' any result! He and Alice measure simultaneously, at any polarizer (field) angle they may chose at the last moment, and only actual outcomes are compared. Your explanation is then unfortunately disproved by Bells irrefutable theorem (all the best brains have tried & failed!).

            I'm not claiming to have done so as it's a tautology. Impossible. However there is just ONE way to change the starting assumptions (which include that; "The particles may be formed having opposite unmeasured behavior not characterized as a singular state"). which would circumvent Bells irrefutable logic.

            That way starts simply by employing Maxwell's twin paired orthogonal state momenta, (including 'curl') which my experiment proves DOES also exist inversely proportional to 'spin up/down'. Then (here doctrine will struggle to grasp it) it should be understood the measurement is NOT of 'spin' but of values of 'different' momenta, measured orthogonally (the Pm Channels). Only then can logic emerge. BUT, there MUST be a random but definite & opposite oscillation values prior to interaction. (Did you know polarisers can completely REVERSE spin polarity?!) You also have to think in 3D for the x,y, AND z, axes.

            I know that's tricky at first so am trying to understand how best to explain it.

            On LENSES. If you study quantum optics you'll see the jury there returned a verdict decades ago! Wavelengths change on interaction (as the refractive plane of a prism) both due to 'polarization mode dispersion' (PMD) AND due to any relative motion (Doppler shift). i.e. We KNOW Light travels through glass at a DEFINITE SPEED (~0.67c) no matter what it's state of motion through and previous propagation medium! The only problem is few theoreticians seem to do any good revision of quantum optics!

            Your link was dead but as I'm an astronomer that was very much my area. It was recently found that the limit 'c' applies locally to orbiting charges even as the orbit grows, so increasing orbit time, so wavelength found. If you'd like to see a video rationalizing the anomalies without needing acceleration expansion try this; Redshift Video .

            very best

            Peter

            Hi Heinrich, thanks for your points.There are abstract mathematical spaces, such as Hilbert space in QM, and time is used as a parameter. This helps with analysis and calculation but is not the space where the physics is actually happening out in the universe rather than on the 'mathematical stage'. t is used but there is no explanation of what that t is in the universe rather than in the calculation.

            You say, "in physics (proper) nothing ever happens". That comes from using Einstein's space-time continuum or other block time model as the explanatory framework for understanding.I am providing an alternative explanatory framework. That is why "The realm of Newtonian time stretching from infinity to infinity where Newton's eternal God is, always, and Block time and the space-time continuum; Parents of paradox" are put on the, to be (at least temporarily) disregarded, heap at the start of the essay. In the proposed alternative things really do happen because of fondatioanl sequential passage of time. Which is change in the configuration of the entire universe. There can be true agency rather than just the semblance of it. As there is no future, it is fully open/non existent, rather than just waiting to be encountered. The happenings do precede the receipt of signals that lead to production of sensory information by which knowledge of what has happened can occur.

            Over time many different kinds of classification and segregation of species have been developed and they are not all the same.There are different ways of thinking about what a species is, the 3 main are 1. appearance and morphological similarity 2. biological reproductive compatibility (able to produce fertile offspring together) and 3. not being geographically isolated, so reproduction opportunity can occur between the individual with reproductive compatibility. There is obviously over lap between the categories given. There can even be distributions of individuals (such as certain Gulls )so that the extremes at either end of the distribution are different in appearance, seemingly different species, but fully reproductively compatible.

            Personally I don't think there needs to be a singular definition of species but wider recognition that the term does not have one meaning and provision of clarity about how it is being used in a particular situation. What springs to mind is prefixes, giving Identseg-species, Biolseg-species and Geoseg-species, with acknowledgement that there is overlap between the categories. Once familiar the prefixes could be shortened to I, B and G. The good thing about the notion of a species is that it can be evaluated. It is one of those 'Sandcastles', not a failure of science. Kind regards Georgina

            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