Fundamentally Complicated, and apparently mostly unobservable, or, trying to squirm out of Paul Davies mental straight jacket inherited from evolutionary happenstance. by Victor Usack

Dear Victor Usack,

You say "the myth of empirical science, accurately reflected in reason, started dying a hundred years ago." I will avoid the "(uncomfortable) awareness of the subjective component to this business." I will avoid even the realist versus idealist aspects. But you then say

"Like time, we have firm intuitive grasp of its meaning."

But over 100 years ago Einstein presented two axioms from which he concluded the "relativity of simultaneity" completely in conflict with our intuitive grasp of time! You mention other "philosophical tailspins", concluding "like the Papacy, the Bureau of Standards is not open to certain types of inquiry." [I like that!]

You note that "the consensual trend seems to be toward the constancy of time as the fundamental reference. The number of oscillations defines the second, [and the second defines the number of oscillations.]" You then ask "is the definition of time a rate or interval?" and then stipulate that the observer's clock and the oscillator are not moving relative to each other.

You extend this "contingency" argument to a number of fundamentals, all of which you do well, but I'll jump off here to blow my own horn. My essay treats the historical development of Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" in a way that I hope will catch your interest. I would appreciate any comments you might give me.

My best regards, and congratulations on a very well-written essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Victor,

Quote "I look for problems with the perceptual, instead of the actual. The "observer - observation system" is a step in the right direction, but still maintains the realist distinction; an appeal to a third person perspective i.e. "I'm looking at myself look at it." VU. Absolutely a step in the right direction.

Quote "The actual reality beyond observation, that must exist, is reconciled with the directly observed by selective thinking." VU. Yes a very important point. they are not the same, I have made a list of differences to demonstrate they are absolutely not the same thing.

Quote "Ultimately, I think, the idealist must call into question the distinction between the observer (or self) and the observation."VU. Very important point. Measurables are relative, not sole properties of the entity investigated. The measurement the observer obtains or what he sees is relative to his particular viewpoint, orientation or state of motion or the procedure he used to obtain a limited, fixed state, or fixed value, measurement outcome. If it is a visual product of observation it is in his mind not external to him.

Thoroughly enjoyable essay. I love that you openly express your frustration and puzzlement through well considered discourse. I like the open questions. For some of which I have answers and others are food for thought. Right brain at end? Kind regards Georgina

By the way, there is an FQXi blog page about the poor old kilogram. You said re. retiring "Le Grand K artifact", "This would seem to alleviate the philosophical problems" VU. I think it somehow severs that intuitive feeling for what mass is. Comparing like with like seems right, even if a dirty (or over cleaned) old school method. Muddling material objects and electromagnetic phenomena caused the category error in Relativity. Georgina

Hi Victor,

You say: "My inability to distinguish the way it is from the way I'm looking at it drives me to schizophrenic madness" and: "One of the fundamental philosophical conundrums is the nature of space as a self-subsistent entity, or instead something that is only real in relation to matter."

The problem has already been solved by Felix Klein: Klein defined space as properties conserved under a transformation group. The Euclidean group is defined as the group of transformations conserving distances and angles (reflection is of no point here). Now, objects like blocks of stone had been manipulated long before Euclid, and it was already then general knowledge that objects don't break when (if so carefully) translated or rotated. 'Not-breaking', however, is equivalent to the 'conservation of object distances and angles'. So, the 'space' of our operations in the world is no geometrical space at all, but defined by operations and relations. Then Euclidean space is that geometrical space NOT CONTRADICTING our operations in the world. And since we have no experience concerning 'spaces' in which e.g. a left shoe can be transformed into a right shoe without tearing it up (4D), any speculation about other than Euclidean spaces is in vain.

Your headache results from trying to be an idealist AND a positivist. How about rationalism?

Heinrich

Victor,

"I once tried to construct a theory of gravity by invoking an artificial and variable unit of volume."

I did so too. Here it goes..

Time slows down as we get closer to the ground. Then an object falls toward a slower time. A slower time means "longer seconds". So, in order for c (meter/second) to remain constant, the meters must grow as much as the seconds get longer. In other words, an object falling toward the ground actually falls into larger space. And, falling into larger space is dispersion a.k.a. the essential of thermodynamics.

So you have gravity is an entropic event or vice-versa. ???

-- Interesting and readable interrogations essay ... But short of the metaphysical answer. All models, numbers etc. are on a need to know basis only. The Universe need not to know any of it in order to happen. So, the universe is what IS and Happen before we look or think about it....

Marcel,

Dear Victor Usack,

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

Ed

Your avoidance is an example of the way we navigate around the philosophical problems. Correct to say relativity assaults the firm intuitive grasp (inherited from evolutionary happenstance). As you can see, I have abandoned myself lost in a conceptual landscape. I allow myself nothing to hold on to except the comfortable providence granted me. SRT works. Synchrotron timing requires SRT. The way I see it, length contraction, time dilation, and relative mass are all ways of looking at the same phenomena. In any description something gets fixed. In the conventional case it is the observer frame. Seconds, meters, and kilograms have fixed meaning at rest in the observers frame. They are variables outside the given frame. My assertion is that we can choose to fix anything we want and write a description. I have not yet found time to digest your essay. But at a glance it seems you would choose to fix the time dimension. Fixing the time dimension seems a sensible realist approach. I have no doubt that would work. At this point I don't know what advantage it has. The mathematics of SRT is not bad, but GRT is. My challenge to you is to write a description of space - gravitation without the bloody Einstein field equations. Help me out. Where is the simple calculation for the correction factor to keep the clock on a geostationary satellite synchronized with my watch? I suspect some preconceived notions are preventing us from convenient description. Perhaps the conundrum of ether, background dependent-independent descriptions, relativity of motion, in short the mystery of space, is not yet understood. I harp on the realism thing because I suspect it prevents us from the stroke of imagination needed to write convenient theories. I have much more to say concerning time but not enough space here.

Dear Victor,

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

Victor,

I define truth as an absence of choice for anyone. The moment we choose, it can`t be a truth.

We don`t have a choice about how we perceive/construct our reality .. So, our reality is a truth system defined by a number of impossibilities.

Impossibility to see beyond UV and IR, to hear above 15k Hz..etc.. These impossibilities define the specific window of our reality.

On the other hand, our intellect has no impossibilities other than those we are accepting. A choiceless logical argument will constitute a truth system in itself. All we have to do is consider the right concepts i.e. existence (substance) and spontaneity (cause).

All the bests,

Marcel,

Well Done Victor! Wonderful arguments about the knowability of the real world, about the impossibility of determining the primary between the ideal and the real world, to limit the judgment of the person only his experience, his programming from communication with other people.

You write: "The equivalence of material and spatial volume may seem like a simplifying assumption, but perhaps it behooves us to exotic geometry to effect a viable description of gravitation" is built On this New Cartesian Physics and if we believe Descartes that space is identical to matter, its quantity it is necessary to measure not mass, but volume. Take a look at my essay in which I try to make the space Foundation for fundamental theories. Let for yourself if it is not perceived by others. It'll make me feel more fundamental.

With great respect, Boris Dizhechko Semyonovich

Hi Dr.Victor Usack

Wonderful analysis... "It seems to me the more fundamental the question is, the more difficult is unequivocal answer. Hmm. This inversion of fundamental simplicity and the knowable vexes my mind."...... dear Dr Victor Usack.... With the same analytic mind.... If you can analyse my essay also....

I hope you may 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

Victor - I really enjoyed reading your essay, thanks. Clearly this is a difficult journey, for you and for many, as the goal of comprehending the universe continues to slip away even as we seem so close. You and Hawking! We believe the universe is comprehensible - but find empirical, rational thought inadequate to the task of comprehending it. We are, at last and at the first, pushed into mysticism.

Cheers - George

Victor,

That is both an accessible and deep description of our cognitive circling.

If I have a particular point of disagreement it would be that space is virtual. In the preceding paragraph you observe that zero is a recent mathematical addition, but that modern math would be inconceivable without it. I would argue space is the physical equivalent to mathematical zero.

If rulers and clocks dilate in moving frames, wouldn't the frame with the fastest clocks and longest rulers be closest to the equilibrium of this universal vacuum, aka space, through which light travels at C?

Also the problem I see with equating measures of duration and distance to create spacetime, assumes the measures are more foundational than what is measured; Space and action.

The problem of time is that as our minds function as flashes of cognition, we think of time as the point of the present, "flowing" from past to future, which physics codifies as measures of duration, but the logical explanation is that it is change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature. Individual frequency, versus mass frequency and amplitude.

Time is asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

Different clocks can run at different rates and remain in the same present because they are separate actions. A faster clock uses energy quicker, like metabolism.

Duration is the state of the present, as events form and dissolve.

As for space being dimensional, three dimensions are the xyz coordinate system and require an 0,0,0 center point, which is spatially subjective. Just like we are all the center points of our own coordinates and overlap all others. Would that make space infinitely dimensional?

Consider as well that a dimensionless point, as a multiple of zero, is self negating. It is just conceptually more convenient than having to stipulate some infinitesimal dimensionality. So it is abstracted from space, as an ideal of location, not foundational to space.

Are longitude, latitude and altitude foundational to the surface of this planet, or just a useful mapping device?

As for Big Bang Theory and all of space emerging from a point, when it was discovered everything is redshifted proportional to distance and this made us appear as the center of the expanding universe, the first patch was applied(eventually to be followed by Inflation, Dark Matter and Energy), by using Spacetime! to say space itself is expanding and every point would appear as the center. Which totally overlooks the essential premise of light being measured at C in any frame, because if it is taking light longer to cross the frame of the universe, in order to be redshifted, obviously it is not Constant to that ruler.

Basically two metrics of space are being derived from the same intergalactic light. One, based on the speed, that is apparently stable and one, based on the spectrum, that is expanding. Which is the real metric?

Given we do appear at the center of this redshift effect, possibly an optical effect might be considered, given we are at the center of our view of the universe.

The vacuum might fluctuate, but first you need the vacuum.

Regards,

John

Dear Victor

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 Victor,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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