Dear Jose, thanks for your more precise description of your lines of reasoning.

I have some more questions and annotations to make for fully understanding whether or not nature exhibits unnatural choices.

I consider a Boing 747. In our world, it is very unlikely that the natural path is such that the probability that nature facilitates this Boing 747 must be considered very low.

According to some quantum mechanical 'fluctuations', it nonetheless isn't forbidden by nature that a Boing 747 is facilitated without the help of any human being. Of course, this 'unnatural' possibility is just of theortical interest, because the assigned probabilities are too low to ever witness such an event.

If I define 'freewill' in the sense that human beings have the limited freedom to choose between two - or more - alternatives by some causa finalis which stands outside any formal system, does your framework then say that nature indeed exhibits 'unnatural' choices? Since human beings can built a Boing 747 by making some choices, I am forced to conclude that the finished Boing 747 is a totally unnatural event.

Surely, due to your lines of reasoning, there is no way to empirically decide whether or not some true freewill was engaged in the building of that Boing 747, since we have not a multitude of identical earths at hand with the same initial conditions that would lead - or not lead - to the same Boing 747 at the exact same time in all histories for all earths.

But now I read in a comment from you to Heinrich Luediger that

"based on it, I will argue that there exists a finite number of finite universes in infinite space."

If I take the existence of a finite number of finite universes in infinite space for guaranteed, does this premise allow you to - logically - decide whether or not nature (whatever it is in its completeness) does exclusively only follow the first three causes Aristotle once defined, or whether it also allows freewill in the sense that not only some choices aren't predetermined in nature, but follow a teleological reason, a causa finalis that cannot be captured by any formal system only?

I think this is an important question regarding the search for some 'fundamentals', albeit the answer to these questions regularily do not make any practical difference for the life of the person who answers them.

    Dear Jose,

    thank you for your essay, that's interesting for sure and I will rate it well.

    I've not fully understood something about your "Fundamentalism" proposal. You write that it implies cause-effect, but in a certain sense it seems to presume it in its very definition (Any field of knowledge has some fundamentals, based on which everything in that field can be logically explained, and so by identifying the fundamentals, we can arrive at the truth). Moreover, how your approach manage the Hume's argument against causation?

    bests,

    Francesco

      Dear Jose;

      Reading your essay was like swimming in a pool. It is full of statements without logical or factual explanations to sustain them. Your whole discourse indicates that you have what I consider a naïve conception of causality. Linear temporal causality has been shown to be inadequate to explain fundamental phenomena.

      The most valuable idea you expressed in your essay (which you really explained logically), is that if there were only one fundamental (there should be either one fundamental entity having more than one property or more than one fundamental entity having different properties) there will be nothing to be explained.

      In the end you left me disappointed, I was expecting that you would establish the basis for determining what's fundamental from your postulates.

      Truly yours;

      Diogenes

        Dear Diogenes,

        Thank you for your comments. I disagree with the statement, 'Linear temporal causality has been shown to be inadequate to explain fundamental phenomena'. It is argued, it is claimed, but not shown.

        Causality is a very simple concept. Why make it appear to be something very complex. However, simple causal factors lead to complex situations; that does not make the concept of causality complex.

        The basis for determining the fundamentals is to identify the causal factors, and finally arriving at the primary causes, which we can call fundamentals. Identifying the causal factors is not theoretical, it depends on observations.

        Jose P Koshy

        Dear Joe Fisher,

        FQXi has not asked us to identify the Natural fundamental. We are asked to explain what fundamental is, whether there is any need for something fundamental. None of us knows what is fundamental to science or mathematics. We can only try to do so.

        Jose P Koshy

        Dear Fransesco,

        I do not agree with Humes regarding causation. Hume, I think, consider that the regularity or pattern that is observed in nature is just our belief, and so causation is just our belief. Our technology works just because this regularity or pattern is factual and dependable, and not a mere belief. The belief may deceive us, but facts do not deceive. The technologies are developed based on causality. Then how can we deny causality.

        Jose P Koshy

        Dear Stefan,

        I agree with you that a finished Boeing 747 is a totally unnatural event. This unnaturalness comes from the fact that some free will action has taken place. I will take this as a proof for the existence of free will.

        Because of this unnaturalness, the event need not be repeated in any other Earth in our universe or other universes. However, if it repeats anywhere, the conditions would be identical to that of Earth (In my model of the universes, structures having freewill emerges during the middle period of expansion, and so any Boeing will emerge more or less at the same period of history of that universe.)

        So in my opinion, the emergence of humans or human like structures having free will is predetermined in any universe (assuming that all universes are identical and made up of the same fundamental entities). But, our creations like the Boeing are not predetermined. It is a teleological event caused by our purposeful action. Nature allows such actions; we can say that such possibilities exist in nature.

        Jose P Koshy

        Dear Jose,

        You are right, casuality works very well, but since it depends on its repetition over time, how can we consider it fundamental? it's not logically impossible that casuality stops working even tomorrow, since the only thing that we can say about it, is that it always works - till now. How about a casuality without time? Is then time more fundamental?

        Bests, thank you for answering!

        Francesco

        Dear Fransesco,

        As far as knowledge is considered, causality is fundamental. The only way available for us to understand nature is to search for the causal effects behind events. As far as nature is considered, the fundamental causal factors, not just causality, are the fundamentals. These include both time and space factors.

        Jose P Koshy

        Jose,

        This is a nice essay. You are really simply arguing for logic. Your ideas should mesh very well with the Scientific Method. Your thinking reminds me a lot of the methodology used for proofs in mathematics and geometry.

        I only have one minor disagreement with your thinking. When you describe dynamic/static, you argue that if something is not changing then it is impossible to determine if there are any governing laws. In engineering, we deal with this all the time. It is called "steady-state". It simply means that there are equal and opposing factors. So, if water is being added and withdrawn from a bathtub at equal rates, the water level in the tub will be constant but conservation of mass is the governing concept.

        Best Regards and Good Luck,

        Gary Simpson

          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