What is "Fundamental"? by DIOGENES AYBAR

Dear Dr. Diogenes Ayba,

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

Diogenes,

The first half of your essay touches on physics being perceptual. Yes, physics studies our experience of the universe but, the universe is not made of "experience". It is made of stuff we have to identify ...

My essay is about a bottom-up approach creation from nothingness using just existence and logic..

Your discourse into explaining our perceptual reality was well done.

Marcel,

Dear Diogenes,

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

A very insightful essay that provides a clear description of the weaknesses of the positivist underpinnings of modern science. The author also presents a path to lay the foundations of a new way of studying and understanding our physical reality. This is the kind of challenging read you'd expect to find in a contest like this. Definitely worth reading; I am sure the readers will take issue with some of the points in the essay (as I did), but even these disagreements offer a good opportunity to revisit what we think we know about the fundamental concepts of science.

Dear Diogenes,

Very interesting and profound essay, revealing the cause of the current crisis in the philosophical foundations of science. But I believe that the criticism of modern theories and basic concepts of physics should be more profound from the point of view of ontology and dialectics. First of all, this refers to the concept of "matter", the ontological states of which fund the space and its structure. My high rating is for your radical ideas and the Cartesian spirit of doubt.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Hello Diogenes,

I like to thanks you for having written this essay. I have found your paper original, profound and well founded. It makes many important points so fundamentals that have the potential to end the state of stagnation the physics is for the last decades. If I understood well, you say that eventually all physical theories will fail, because are built with "system bias" as a consequence on being founded on perceptive derived concepts. I would like that you had included an example of the reasons you think a specific physical theory, like general relativity, sooner or later, will fail.

You have proposed the existence of an ontological substratum of "subjacent fundamental structures generated by The Essence". That proposal remind me the implicate order of Bohm, the notion that there is a more fundamental reality that determines the intrinsic connections of processes in the universe.

One of your proposals for the development of science is to enlarge its field, through the study of those fundamental structures of ontological nature. If this realm is not subject to observation, I ask myself how scientific endeavors can be accomplished.

I have seen many theories of discrete space time, but not one, has been able to link the space structure proposed with the physical world as you have done. Another feature is the change of the traditional use of the distance concept for a more appropriate one, the Action Distance. Many theories only postulate the necessity of a discrete space, and do not provide justification for the emergence of matter. By the way, it looks as if you have done a mix of emergent and reductionist approaches.

One of the more amazing things you achieved is clearing the concept of Time. In fact, I do not remember another scientific coherent concept of time. Time is always presupposed, or circularly defined, e.g. it is what clocks measure. Time as a property of space is a revolutionary concept. In a certain way you reconcile two antagonist positions. In one hand are those who saw the contradiction between the parametric time of science and the perceptual time and try to eliminate it from scientific theories like Barbour and Rovelli and in the other, those that see time as universal fundamental, like Smolin. The distinction of "fundamental time" and the parametric time is revealing.

In your essay you affirm that the perception of time is relative. That one needs to perceive two sequences of events in order to experience time. But, if a person is shut away in a room with no interaction with the exterior world provided with a fixed electrical light and no change at all inside the room, except for the existence of an ornamental plant in a pot that grow, you would say he cannot perceive time, because there is only one sequence of events. I think you are wrong. In this scenario, one perceives change and abstract time from it. What he cannot have is a measure of time because there is no other process to compare with.

Another instance when you demonstrated your deep insights is in the section of Inertia, Mass, Electric Charge, when you define Inertia in a general form as " a measure of the inner complexity of a system" and Mass as a form of Energy with a complex (or compound) dynamic structure that confers it Inertia.

Hello Diogenes,

See you at my forum. Send your e-mail to my address ideabank@yandex.ru

Success in the Contest and in promoting your ideas!

All the best!

Vladimir

Diogenes,

A few comments concerning your essay will suffice:

"Essential Stuff" is not defined.

Why should "pre-existing space void of content" be meaningful? Surely nothing is nothing. Meaning is subjective.

How can the emergence of time be dependent upon the prior existence of space if the existence of space necessarily requires duration (aka time)?

Geometry is a descriptor of space, whether one-dimensional, two-dimensional or three-dimensional ', not a "Fundamental Entity".

A tetrahedron is a description of a particular, specific volume of space, not a necessary or fundamental constituent of space.

Why should there be any need to generate origins for either space or time? If both are infinite, then they go back in existence forever.

While time is a fundamental property of reality, it is not a succession of any type of events. The units of measurement of time are manufactured for our collective convenience. I agree that "all perceived time is relative."

All of which leads us back to the question What is "Fundamental"?

Thanks for the good read.

Keep up the good work.

Dear Diogenes Aybar,

Thank you for your essay on FQXi.

I fully agree with you and our views, till end of third page in the essay, where you summarize 'The generation of Fundamentals', are very similar. But I think; once we have assumed 'essence' ( I call it the 'substance') as the most fundamental, it should form all other (observed and unobserved) real entities in universe. No other assumptions (like: space, time, etc.) are required. Only property, the assumed 'essence' (substance) required is to have its ability to exist. Assumption of ability of 'essence' to exist can logically explain creations of all real entities, their apparent interactions and dynamic actions in universe.

Nainan

Djastravithe Dr DIOGENES AYBAR

Your discussion on What is "Fundamental"? is xorosho "discussing the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develops new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental." Cpasebo darogoy DIOGENES AYBAR

............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

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 Diogenes,

You begin by acknowledging the need for a conceptual basis and the basic or 'substantial' stuff from which stems everything that exists or becomes. The conceptual basis is 'mental structure' for imaging and image correlation entailing information-based limitations of finite channels and noise. From these derive our concepts of space, time, mass, and distance, all sensor based. The ontological basis of such is inherently unknown, but sensed correlations allow us to build up mental structures which we project onto reality. Since pre-existing space devoid of content seems unlikely to exist, the essential stuff entails space which leads to space and time, wherein events occur. You conclude that space cannot be continuous. My own concept is that the 'essential stuff' or field is a continuum. You note that the concept of time currently used in science is subjective. You have read my essay so you know that I identify time as universal simultaneity.

You discuss mass in terms of inertia, then define the most basic form of matter as 'energy', with self-consistent dynamic structure. Again this seems compatible with my energy-time conjugation interpretation that is basic to the measurement of time.

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. Good luck in this contest.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Diogenes,

Amazing essay! You used this essay contest to give us a description of "all and everything"! It resonated strongly with me. To see why please take a look at -www.digitalwavetheory.com-

And of course take a look at my essay:)

I have a difficult time imagining that many contest entrants will appreciate your essay. This goes way beyond the standard model.

Glad to be an alumnus of CCNY.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

Hello Diogenes,

I did read the EMG theory of the photon (it was easy to google). We work in different ways, but it could be we are converging on gravity.

From what I can see you derive that the photon has a gravitational nature. I postulate that the photon "experiences" space-time as a substance with a gradient index of refraction produced by "my goofy gravitons". I start with the Planck-Einstein equation, you start with Maxwell's equations (in EMG not your essay). I am still in awe of your essay.

In EMG theory you reference the Compton wavelength. I believe the graviton is a Compton wavelength that can span galaxies and connect to Planck masses. I determine that the Planck mass is needed to anchor gravitons by solving the Planck-Einstein equation combined with Newton's law of gravity (the Planck mass is the solution).

One of my website pages gets ten times as many hits as the rest of my 36 page site. I'm not really sure why? My intuition says that it might interest you.

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/16_Derivation_of_the_Compton_Wavelength.html

Let's keep up this conversation, I will re-read your essay.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Dear Diogenes

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