Hi Sebastian De Haro

"Thus the resulting picture of the world, suggested by emergence in theories of physics, is one of ontological levels or domains, which are relatively fundamental and are partially, though not totally, ordered." Wonderful conclusion of Relative Fundamentality dear Sebastian De Haro.............

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/ "

By the way..................... Please post reply on my essay also....

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.

Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h

tml

Best Regards

=snp

Dear "Sebastian De Haro"

kindly have a look at essay of BASILEIOS GRISPOS... There is a striking resemblance in thinking with his essay......Best wishes to your essay...

Best

=snp

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

  • [deleted]

I just read your essay. I would overall say that what is at the foundation is relative to what we can observe. To the middle 19th century natural philosopher Newtonian mechanics and its variants due to Lagrange and Hamilton were fundamental. An increased domain of observation or experience ultimately lead to relativity and quantum mechanics.

Cheers LC

23 days later

Dear Sebastian

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Dear Sebastian,

Thanks for this paper. Your model of emergence is interesting and I think I see how it avoids Kim's exclusion problem.

I have a question about your notion of approximative emergence and how this can be described as a form of ontological rather than epistemological emergence. We usually think of approximations as restating the same facts in a less accurate way, rather than a way of describing additional or "novel" facts. But you must be thinking of approximation in some other way - is there an example you have in mind that might let me see the kind of relationship between theories you describe as approximation as more clearly pointing to additional facts as opposed to old facts described in less accurate terms?

Best,

Alyssa

Dear Alyssa,

Thank you for your comments and for your question. Yes, the notion of approximation I am thinking of is more than mere 'coarse graining'. It usually involves either considering a sequence of similar physical systems, or changing the theory in some other non-trivial way. A well-known example is the hbar --> 0 limit of quantum theories. Since hbar is a dimensionful quantity, taking this limit means that one must also take other quantities in the theory to a certain limit (usually, one takes large action): and so, since the limit compares systems with different numerical values of the action, one is really changing the physical system. Another example is Malament's discussion of the relation between GR and geometrized Cartan gravity, where c --> infty. Again here, this limit must be taken relative to the speeds of all the particles in the theory, and so taking the limit means comparing different physical situations.

In my case, the ontological nature of emergence comes not from the approximation itself, but from the interplay between approximation and interpretation, which sometimes forces one to 'change system', as in the above examples.

I hope this helps.

By the way, I have had a lot of fun teaching metaphysics from your book--I like it very much, it is very clear.

Best,

Sebastian

14 days later

Dear Sebastian,

I found your essay really interesting. It offers a much more detailed account of some ideas that I barely managed to sketch roughly in my own entry: the notions of relativity of levels, and in particular the way you showed the latter to be a p.o. - something which I find entirely plausible but couldn't substantiate. So, I should certainly look up your recent papers!

One aspect that I liked is that you represent the relation between theories and that between domains differently (approximation versus emergence). Your notion of approximation seems to be a rather broad one, including limits and idealizations. This invites the question what happens at the domain side: maybe distinctions among notions of emergence would naturally fit those, too?

What I'm not convinced about - or at least not yet - is the ontological import of your proposal. I think the proposal is interesting even if this part fails, but as I assume it is important for you, I'll try to explain my reservations. The reason is that you use "domains in the world", but this seems question-begging (cf. positivism): we can at best use a model that intends to capture those. (In this specific regard, I would recommend Jochen Szangolies's entry as a possible antidote; paraphrasing: the tree in our model is not the tree in the world and what Whitehead called "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness".)

Regarding the text itself, a minor drawback is that there is no wrap-up; it just stops. :)

This leaves intact the main thing I took away from your proposal, which is the analysis for why degrees of fundamentalness are not totally ordered: because they are related across different dimensions of the (relevant) bottom theory.

Best wishes,

Sylvia - Seek Fundamentality, and Distrust It

Dear Sylvia,

Thank you for reading my essay and for commenting on it.

The answer to your worry is in the last page of the essay, point (C): namely, in the distinction between Quine's and Aristotle's ontological projects. I quote from the essay: 'the worlds that I have been describing are not to be (naively, and wrongly!) identified with the world as it is in itself--whatever that might be taken to mean.'

Working out the ontology of scientific theories, the way they are interconnected, and their logical structure, is a different project from explicating the way in which the elements of that ontology exist in our world--which is Quine's project not Aristotle's. Aristotle's project about 'being' differs from Quine's project about 'existence', in that the former allows for things, and categories, to appear in our ontology, that we may one day come to reject as literal parts of our world. Those things are, in some sense: even if they do not exist in the literal sense in which the theory would say they do.

This is how my framework avoids Whitehead's fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Whitehead also says something else in that first masterly chapter of Process and Reality: namely, that the accurate expression of the final generalities is the goal of the discussion and not its origin. This is the spirit in which I have undertaken this ontological project: for it aims to investigate how things are, according to our best scientific theories, rather than explicating their existence in our world. That second, more ambitious, Quinean project needs to be undertaken, for sure: but I believe that one should be not too hasty about the latter. For there are some important questions about the ontology of emergence and reduction that need to be addressed before that more ambitious project can be undertaken. This is what I have done in this essay.

Best,

Sebastian

    A side comment: one sometimes hears that positivists (or, more realistically today, constructive empiricists) are not committed to ontology, and that all they need to care about is epistemology. This would not be a problem if it were true, for then the ontology of scientific theories would then simply collapse to an epistemology and still be fruitful. But I very much doubt that the statement can be true. For even the empiricist has to admit that any interpreted scientific theory necessarily assumes certain ontological facts about the world: even if a world only of phenomena, whose ontological commitments the empiricist takes to be minimal. In other words, even the empiricist assumption that all that our theories describe are regularities, rests on some ontological assumptions: such as that there are regularities in the world for our scientific theories to describe, and that those regularities do not point to any deeper ontological structure.

    Dear Sebastian,

    My apologies for missing that important part on my first reading. Thank you for this clarification, it helps a lot!

    Best wishes,

    Sylvia

    Write a Reply...