'Fundamentality' as a Linguistic Paradigm (and Linguistics as a Fundamental Paradigm) by Aditya Dwarkesh

Dear Aditya Dwarkesh,

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Aditya,

reading your essay here has been a truly refreshing experience. Just now I would like to mention that my contribution to the topic seems to share some points with yours: we both write about 'bootstrapping' and weight on linguistics. To make things clearer I could say that I have reworked the well known Semiotic Triangle into something which is dubbed in the title "A fundamental loop".

Even if I have perhaps rather strong reservations about your view of the experts' role in determining meanings, your argumentation is impressive as whole.

Best

a.losev

Dear Aditya Dwarkesh,

Language is your friend; you wield it like a sword. Normally I tend to judge on physical concepts and physical content, but I believe this contest has broader aims. In physics, formal models are supreme, but the question for this essay is more semantic, and beautiful prose is very appropriate.

Nevertheless, my own essay contains formal analysis. Specifically it analyzes the literary invention of additional time dimensions and shows how this essentially semantic action ricochets through physics for a century or more. Thus words are powerful, especially when called 'axioms'. I hope you will read and appreciate my essay, and I welcome your comments.

Korzybski reminded us "the map is not the territory." The word is not the reality, but it is the best map we have, particularly when buttressed with logic and math. When words such as "the relativity of simultaneity" are taken as gospel, the integral universe of time as universal simultaneity is fractured, and the effect of this on our consensus worldview is enormous. It is no exaggeration to state that such a fracture is difficult, almost impossible to overcome, and the result is a more schizophrenic worldview, "fundamentally" askew.

You discuss differences in worldview. Some, as your difference in 'string' and 'fields', are secondary in significance. Others, like our innate sense of time are first-order fundamentals. That is the focus of my essay analyzing the historical evolution of this fractured time and its non-intuitive consequences that come to be considered appropriate. Like many authors have stated in this contest, 'non-intuitive' is unlikely to be appropriate. It is more likely a serious sign that things have gone off the tracks. You imply something similar with

"...back when quantum mechanics was young and busy clobbering physicists over their heads with the shocks."

Ninety years would seem to be time to get the train back on the tracks, and enormous effort has been expended toward this goal, but we cannot yet get up a head of steam. Even today respected scholars do not know whether the wave function is ontological or epistemological.

I very much appreciate your essay and your skill with words, and I hope you will appreciate the ideas in my essay.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Aditya Dwarkesh,

In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Aditya Dwarkesh,

In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Aditya,

being interested in philosophy of language, I found your essay very pleasurable, interesting and well written - it deserves my high vote. I found many interesting points in common with my essay as well, specially when you argument about the relative nature of languages and theories.

You write that "With respect to a given theory at a time T, its fundamental entities are the elements of a set which is both necessary and sufficient for the construction and explication of the theory in its entirety and does not contain any non-necessary elements.".

It's an interesting point, but since the properties of "construction and explication" are related to the speakers, it changes depending on them.

i.e: in a quote like "give me that apple", "give" and "apple" looks more fundamental. But if I've never seen an apple, "apple" is useless and I would require "red thing". If my listener doesn't speak English, I would need different words etc.

Good luck!

Francesco D'Isa

Dear Aditya,

For an 11th grader (16 year old?) you write extraordinarily well! Excellent writing and scholarship. I appreciated your linguistic take on `fundamental' and its association with `indispensable'.

I will come back with another post if I have something more to say.

What would you regard as fundamental, from the point of view of physical theories about the universe?

I do hope your essay will do well in this contest.

Tejinder

Chy Aditya Dwarkesh

Wonderful command over language "`fundamental' and its association with `indispensable"dear Aditya Dwarkesh, I really appreciate it.... Best wishes to your essay.......... very nice idea using English keep it up.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

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

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

Aditya, i really commrnd you for your boldness in expressing your thoughts in a public plateform. My first author too Anil Shanker was just a 15 year old boy without formal education when he gave a lecture on Physics to the faculty at Kurukshetra University. I am sure your talent too will see the light of the day soon. May i request you to look up our essay and comment on the same. I will do the same on your Essay too.

We all play with words and then say that we have expressed our opinion. Persons holding the same opinion in essaence may well use different words than i do. Thus, may i say that Silence has given rise all the words we use today. Words go on increasing with time as we find more things to say. In essence we mostly say what others have said or written about, give refrences to them but what is the net result. We add nothing to everything that already exists. Personally i feel expressing oneself with least use of words is a better communication. Comprehending proper understanding does not require long essays, the essence lies in few words therein. Again, my very best wishes for your future in the comity of humanity that exists in the world today!

Hello Aditya,

You did make this presentation fit in the space allowed. I do not think it was one gigantic cheat, but was this "fitting" indispensable?

1. I read the whole thing (really). Your writing was good enough to keep me going. The sprinkle of humor helped.

2. I liked the Wittgenstein quote: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". We are model makers (theory makers) and language is an important part in making and reading our models. This fits with: That which we cannot describe, we cannot comprehend.

4. You made you point: Language is fundamental! Nice job!

Don Limuti

PS: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

ATTRIBUTION: LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

Dear Aditya

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

Very nicely written Mr. Dwarkesh!

I fully enjoyed your perspective and the way you put things together.

Rate it accordingly. Further words are useless.

If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

Silviu