Dear Gary,

I would prefer to use the terms 'systems' and 'subsystems' for 'independent systems' and 'parts of systems' respectively. In my opinion, a system should be dynamic (in addition to other attributes given in the essay), but subsystems can be in steady-states (as in the example given by you). This steady-state exists as a consequence of the dynamic nature of the system to which the subsystem belongs. So I would say there is no disagreement between us in this case.

Regarding 'scientific method', there can be different shades of opinion. Can you just clarify your view?

Jose P Koshy

Jose,

Regarding the Scientific Method ... I was thinking that your methodology could be applied to the underlying hypothesis. Is the hypothesis a single entity that must be taken as a whole or can the hypothesis be broken into parts? For example, with Darwinism, are variation, environment, and competition part of the same entity or are they separate things?

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Dear Gary,

The view that there are some fundamentals is a reductionist approach to explain the whole. However the reduction need go only to the level that is required. The choice is arbitrary; the only criterion is that the fundamentals should be capable of explaining the whole completely.

If 'existence of life' is our field of study, and we all agree that Darwinism is the right approach, then Darwinism is fundamental; the disagreement is only on the application of Darwinism in each context. However, if we disagree with Darwinism itself, then we have to go further downwards, and identify fundamentals that may include factors other than variation, environment and competition.

When we come to the study of nature, we have to go to the very fundamentals that cannot be further divided. In other fields, we need not go to the very bottom level; the fundamentals in that field may be divisible further.

Jose P Koshy

13 days later

Dear Jose P Koshy

Your statement "Why laws are mathematical". Newton's first law of motion is conceptual. No equation is involved. The second and third laws are mathematical.

Please read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

    Dear Rajpal,

    The first law of motion is actually a mathematical statement regarding motion. It can be expressed as,

    v 0 = v; and 0 0 = 0, that is, without any interference the speed 'v' and speed '0' does not change.

    However, straight-line motion is the simplest form of motion, and so the law contains a 'conceptual part' regarding motion. Mathematically motion is a change in a variable; uniform increase or uniform decrease in the value of that variable is identical to uniform motion.

    Generally, the first law is regarded as a 'concept' regarding bodies, rather than a concept regarding motion. So it follows that a body left to itself will either remain at rest or move along a straight line.

    In my view, a real body made up of matter can neither remain at rest nor move along a straight-line, even if it is outside all external interference. Motion and gravity are fundamental properties of bodies, and its own gravity prevents the body from moving along a straight-line.

    I will go through your essay within a few days.

    Jose P Koshy

    Dear Jose,

    Here we are again all together.

    I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

    «Any system is dynamic, quantized, finite and deterministic, is governed by mathematical laws, and always have some fundamentals based on which the system can be explained». This is my motto as well.

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

    Vladimir Fedorov

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

      Very nice logical journey Mr. Koshy.

      I fully enjoyed and I think further words are useless.

      Rate it accordingly.

      If you would have the pleasure for a related logical approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion

      Silviu

        Dear Jose

        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 Fedorov,

          Thank you for the comments. I have been busy with some personal problems that I had no time to go through the essays this time. I will be going through your essay shortly.

          Jose P Koshy

          Dear Silviu,

          Thank you for the comments. I will go through your essay within a few days.

          Jose P Koshy

          Dear Steven,

          I remember that last year we have had some discussions. Your view that a clock is an instrument that directly links QM and GR is thought provoking. However, I have some reservations with both QM and GR - both are 'basically wrong' in my opinion.

          I think that the theory of evolution put forth by Darwin has inspired you to think about such a possibility in the case of the universe. As a starting point it was good. I think it is time you removed the term Darwinian from your theoretical arguments. The term 'emergence' would be more appropriate and more fundamental than 'Darwinian emergence'. The 'Darwinian evolution' of life is not fundamental, it should be explained based on some fundamentals in physics. Your theory regarding the universe should be capable of explaining Darwinian evolution.

          I will go through your essay to understand what you mean by 'principle of force dilation'. I expect that it will be independent of Darwin.

          Jose P Koshy

          Jose,

          You make a brave and well founded "..attempt to formalize a concept of 'Fundamentalism'." which I think was well presented and largely successful. I'm glad I got to it and find most agreeable, certainly that; "theoretical model-building based on fundamentals can lead us to the truth." (but) "..the search for truth based on fundamentalism gets derailed due to errors."

          As another down to earth realist I also very much liked and support;

          "if the fundamental entities have a beginning, they will just pop out in space, remain confined in a finite region of space and will just disappear within a finite time."

          "Mathematics has no role in deciding the properties of the fundamental entities. However, mathematics decides the emergent structures"

          "for complete predictability, we have to measure or quantify all causal factors"

          "space and time factors connected with matter are quantized and finite, and are parts of systems."

          I really couldn't find much to argue with, and am interested in your bio comment; "motion (at speed 'c') is a property of matter,"[/c] I found a whole thesis partly on that, but more specifically electron (fermion) spin at c and as the modulator of local local speed c. The de-paradoxing of SR that can bring is extended in mine this year to remove non-causal weirdness from QM. It won't pass the gatekeepers of doctrine but I think you'll like it! Do comment there.

          Nicely done. I'm sure you've been 1 bombed as I have so my score will help compensate.

          Peter

          Write a Reply...