"But nature is a stranger yet" by Giovanni Prisinzano

Dear Giovanni Prisinzano,

You suggest "fundamental is what exists and constitutes a characterizing aspect of the universe", while admitting that we do not know what it is. You sketch a list of possible fundamentals, then pick two from the list, time and free will, to focus on.

Of time you say, "even if we do not know what it is, we cannot do without it." You then review concept from Parmenides and Zeno to Wheeler and DeWitt, whose ideas led to the concept of a static universe seen from outside, while inside it is not. In some ways this might approximate the Now, which Einstein admitted worried him.

The topic of free will is difficult to tackle, and as you say, it differs greatly from that of time. I agree with your overview comments and have little to add before further study of the details of free will in your essay.

I do however hope that my essay is of interest to you, as I deal with the historical development of Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity". I would be very interested in any comments you might give me.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Giovanni,

Nice essay. IMO, logic and rule of non-contradiction with existence constitute the foundation of everything .. Aristotle was right!

Marcel,

Dear Dr Giovanni Prisinzano,

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 Giovanni Prisinzano,

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

"But, if we know that a totalizing and definitive theory is impossible in the field of elementary mathematics (even of arithmetic), why should it be possible in physics, where the most ambitious and comprehensive theories, such as string theory, have great power and elegance on a mathematical level, but they remain very far from finding empirical evidence?" There might be two fundamental responses to Gödel's incompleteness results: (1) search for new mathematical axioms or (2) reject the concept of a complete infinity and the concept of a potential infinity. I have suggested that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Google "witten milgrom", "mcgaugh milgrom", and "kroupa milgrom".

Dear Giovanni,

Thanks for reading my essay and asking questions.

While general relativity and quantum theory are well tested and generally accurate, they are not completely compatible. I believe this is due to misconceptions or misinterpretations built into the theories. If we can correct these false assumptions, we may remove the inconsistencies.

You ask if clocks actually measure energy, not time, by what means can the latter be measured? Just as we choose a solid meter length in Paris, or a fixed number of certain wavelengths is the standard of length, we choose a certain frequency count as a unit of time, say the second. If the meter stick heats up and expands, space does not expand, only our standard meter is inaccurate. The source of the frequency count must be held constant to tell time. If its temperature changes, due to heat energy, or because it acquires kinetic energy, then its count will change. This represents clock error, not actual change in a time dimension, as relativity postulates. Many think time does not actually flow, but is universally simultaneous. That seems a very probable interpretation to me.

Thanks again,

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Dr Giovanni Prisinzano,

You took a list " without claiming completeness, of basic concepts, we compare two of them, one included (time) and the other not-included (free will) in what is fundamental.".... nice logic... you are correct we can not decide which is fundamental.... I think both are.... And nature is a stranger yet nicely said.....Dr Giovanni Prisinzano Best wishes for your essay. ....... very nice idea.... 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, here time is used, but free will was not...!

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

Dear Giovanni,

thanks for sharing a very nice and insightful essay.

I definitely appreciate your approach, and I was particularly pleased by the sentence "Science is, first, a human product and we have learned for a long time that absolute objectivity, at least in the context of knowledge of the physical world, is impossible". It is very interesting the shift that you propose from an strong (ontological) research of fundamentals to an epistemological one. In a very lousy way, I have proposed something similar with a methodological-dependent search for what is fundamental (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3017).

We surely have somme differences, but overall I liked your essay very much. I ave it my best rating.

Best of luck!

Flavio

Dear Giovanni Prisinzano,

I have read your essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Nicely written Mr. Prisinzano!

Thank you indeed for some insights. Somehow your presented images about "free will" and "time" together were like two puzzle pieces which seems to me that, somehow, they complete/fit each other. What one has, dose not the other, and vice versa. Given that, could we think that "they (maybe) could be two different perspectives of the same thing?" I don't know if this make same sense for you as for me but it is a pleasant read and a grade in accordance

If you would have the time and pleasure for one more essay, maybe you would find this one to be related to your quote "The withdrawal of an absolute meaning of "fundamental" in favor of a relative one is not so much a question of choice, as it is a result of centuries of scientific research and of reflection on it"

Respectfully,

Silviu

Sorry for being "anonymous" previously

Silviu

Dear Giovanni

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 Giovanni,

The title of your essay prompted a look Emile Dickinson's poem. I include the last two stanzas: (She must have had an intuition that quantum mechanics and relativity was on the way).

But nature is a stranger yet; And those that cite her most Have never passed her haunted house, Nor simplified her ghost.

To pity those that know her not Is helped by the regret That those who know her, know her less The nearer her they get.

Your essay did an excellent job of getting this concept across in prose.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

Do visit my essay before the contest ends. You will like it.