Fundamentality, Explanation, and the Unity of Science by Gregory Derry

Professor,

and a 'Hello again to JBM'.

I had read your essay when it had a single community rating of 10, and as I do not regard myself as professionally qualified to opine at either extreme, contributed a 9 to the public rating. jrc

I would, however, like to differ with conventional thinking about entropy based on my admittedly personal preference for a field continuum paradigm and a condensed matter regime producing unitary field precipitate masses. A continuum conceptually begins to become undone be any effort to mathematically represent it, where by metaphysical description it has no real parts but simply connects with itself smoothly across characteristic variation, such as might be defined as energy density. But energy being deemed physically real, yet only materially so by virtue of proportional density; there is a non-entropic property to energy in the raw. So *entropy* is thus an emergent property of differentiated masses condensed from an energy supersaturate condition which none-the-less follows 'the arrow of time'. I would conject that the uni-directional nature of time is a fundamental consequence of point locality in neutral centrality, where given that if there is existence there whould become spacetime; and that an (Boolean) intersection of a span of time with a span of space would incite a leap-frog response of attenuation progressing to a self-replicating proportion (such as phi) limiting at light velocity. Since Minkowski it has been merely taken for granted that the scale of time and that of space are identical, yet there is no universal scale to be found for either, only the limit of light velocity. So any occurance of point locality would engender existential propagation of either dimension at any relative scale between nil and *c*. A longer span of space intersection with a shorter span of time would set the initial relative scales and as time sought to equal the span of space, space would also attenuate approaching the golden mean at light speed. While a shorter span of space intersection with a longer span of time would incite the opposite leap-frog condition propogating out of existence. Hence a possible mathematical rationale could be found for both the Arrow of Time and Universal Constant Light Velocity, and an origin of Energy. Entropy can thus enter the physics when a general definition of inertia is accepted. Cheers, jrc

Hi Prof Gregory Derry

Your essay in well readable , you are very knowledged learned person dear prof Gregory Derry. The idea of four foundational pillars as you mention are very logical... .......... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope 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

Hello Gregory,

Congratulations. It was a pleasure to read your comments. For a scientist with your depth of experience and understanding, you held faithfully to the contest evaluation criterion that essays should be 'accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience'; a point that some authors appear to have overlooked.

While I had not considered 'explanatory structures' as being anything more than our best efforts to describe objective and subjective realities, I admit that, in the absence of the 26 letters of the alphabet, we are hard pressed to 'think' about, far less 'communicate', our perceptions of the milieu that we find ourselves entangled in. A corollary of this thought lies in your statement: 'I'm claiming that these complex system explanatory structures are

fundamental.' Certainly, utilizing the alphabetic system takes us as far as we can go in our search for fundamental truths, and that in itself is a fundamental truth!

While I seek the ultimate precondition upon which all things and ideas depend, I readily acknowledge that a multitude of phenomena, including ideas, are conditional upon the existence of a multitude of quasi-fundamentals, as effects are dependent upon causes.

The FQXi question What is "Fundamental?" invites a singular response; otherwise the question would be framed: What are "Fundamental?" Thus I was led to my singular fundamental revelation: 'Existence' is the prerequisite for all else.

The only exception to that interpretation is to respond to the FQXi question with the answer: 'Yes'.

Insofar as time and space are generally presumed to be infinite in all directions, why should energy and matter not be infinitely durable, simply transposing themselves from one to the other as determined by circumstances?

The 'thorn in the lion's paw' (i.e. the popular notion of an expanding universe in the absence of any accounting for what is beyond) requires to be extracted in order to reconcile the term 'Uni' with the concept of a single 'Universe' that is infinite. What many scientists refer to as the 'Universe' is simply the perceptible portion 'of all there is' that goes on forever, 'breathing', a dynamic that Einstein expressed in his general theory of relativity that modeled the large-scale structure of the universe. But all is subject to change, aka 'emergence' - with exceptions!

Finally, as a traveler through nature, I concur with your assessment that 'in our quest for understanding, the journey is more important than the destination.' Go well.

Gary.

Dear Gregory,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

It is so close to me. «I believe that Being will al ways be able surprise us with new mysteries to solve, and the history of science (including recent history) is certainly on my side in this prediction. I don't regard this as a pessimistic attitude, though, because in our quest for understanding, the journey is more important than the destination».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Gregory

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

Hi Gregory,

I like your theory of the fundamental. I think of it as a checklist for sanity when determining what is fundamental.

Derry's attributes of the Fundamental: Generality, Irreducibility, Commensurability, and Fertility. I would add an attribute: Agreeability Without agreement there would be as many fundamentals as there are individuals. Perhaps this would be just a bookkeeping problem?

Here is how I would rate my essay: "The Thing That Is Space-Time"

Generality: very general

Irreducibility: Yes

Commensurability: Yes, pretty good fit QM and GR

Fertility: Future will tell

So, visit my essay and let me know what you think. And thanks for your excellent essay.

Don Limuti

Dear Gregory,

Great essay. I agreed pretty well all and it was nicely argued. I'd missed it as it was 'off the radar' but a great late comeback on the outside to nip at my heels!

Now the contest is over I hope I can persuade you to read my electron OAM based derivation of a classical (non-linear dynamics) ontology reproducing the predictions of QM. It came from testing a momentum exchange model with wider applicability.

Are you familiar with the concept of 2-fluid plasma and Maxwell near/far field Transition Zone? or the Poincare Sphere?, and the Spin Stats theorem?

Anyway I hope you can study it carefully and revert. It need help to bring to light. See also my (top scored) 2015 Red/Green Sock Trick and other finalist essays.

Well done, and thanks in advance. Do contact me direct; pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

Very Best

Peter

...In 2010 my top 10 finalist essay '2020 vision' used Maxwell's near/far fields and the 2-fluid plasma we find at field transition zones with speed delta dependent density, only needed re-emission to be at c in each electron centre of mass rest frame to remove all paradox from SR, yet KEEP the postulates! (read that essay and the 3 after). That had the issue you described; how widely powerful was it? It seemed very! It seemed to lift thick mist from many areas, i.e. Stellar aberration was a big one. It even pointed to a solution for the problematic 'excluded middle' in logic, also a cyclic cosmology, natural cosmic redshift, stellar aberration and a tranch of other astrophysics problems! Sounds silly I know, but just look (some in papers not essays).

So QM was simply a test of an extant model that we'd failed to falsify any other way. I say 'simply', but of course it wasn't, needing more research in photonics, plasma etc. etc. I tested all QM's assumptions and found a flaw; the 'no assumption' assumption for pair morphology.... cont

..The data was then wrongly interpreted to suggest 'singlet states' but 'superposed', when the two momenta pairs were REAL state vectors! I knew angular momentum of a sphere (i.e. Earth) varied by Cos Latitude, and it was clear what A,B's (rotatable) polariser electrons DID find; either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' vector for each of the ELECTRONS 4 states! So with antiparallel conjugate pair polar axes; both A and B can independently REVERSE the finding! Einstein wins! (after a draw in the first leg).

Frankly even with collaboration I can't handle half the implications and papers required. Are you any good at maths? My 2015 Wigner essay did score top, but that doesn't mean I'm a mathematician. So in summary; The 'discrete field' model already has shown it's wider worth. If doesn't need to 'overturn either SR or QM but does allow unification. Of course changing the deeply held beliefs of physicists is quite another matter and likely impossible (see my last yrs essay & 'cognitive dissonance'. '2020' certainly seems optimistic!

Many links to papers & videos are in the essay posts, or just ask. Many papers are on Researchgate, arXiv or; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter

Very best, Peter