something not yet found by richard kingsley nixey

richard nixey

Essay Abstract

Reductionism in science, looking for the smallest possible entities and 'causes' has been discredited philosophically for not being able to explain effects such as 'intuition'. That assumption may now be argued to be false. Learning in artificial intelligence is ever advancing. Reading last years finalist fqXi essays (at least the peer scored top dozen or so) a number of credible schema now exist to model human neural networks and outcomes. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31425?sort=community Even the imperfect subconscious process outcomes we label 'intuitive' can be causally & mechanistically recreated with feedback loops. Are we sure we're using reductionism enough, to go deep enough? Not just to observational limits but to rationalization of findings taking us beyond those limits. I argue that we probably haven't yet found, or at least recognized, what's really fundamental in nature.

Author Bio

Graduated Brunel University, UK. Inc. Bachelors degree in bio-chemistry, Medical Research Council (MRC, Neuropsychiatric research unit). Research in physical chemistry and electro-magnetism. Biochemistry and related Research, Pfizer UK (developing growth promotants), Now specialising mainly in em, radio telemetry, and telecommunications with continued wider research interests in physics history, light, astrophysics, relativity and cosmology

Download Essay PDF File

Joe Fisher

Dear richard kingsley nixey,

You wrote in the Abstract: "I argue that we probably haven't yet found, or at least recognized, what's really fundamental in nature."

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite complex pretentious information ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Stephen Ternyik

It is a well composed essay, asking for the missing link in scientific research. Good work.

richard nixey

Thank you Stephen , I will read your essay as soon as time permits, Richard

Joe Fisher

Dear Richard,

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

Edwin Klingman

Dear Richard Kingsley Nixey,

I like that you begin by discussing intuition. I have heard much too often that "our brains simply didn't evolve to understand such and such...". If you read my last essay you know that I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I also like your statement: "at the very least the anti-reductionist is owed an account of why the intuitions arise if they were not accurate." [I can hear the 'just-so' stories already.] You phrase a tough question: "how do we know it won't unless we keep looking?" and note "... our most formal theories are actually based on what we can't see or certainly don't fully understand... Time? Space-time?"

I have for years more or less ignored "the relativity of simultaneity" that demolished our intuitive understanding of time as universal simultaneity, but have recently had occasion to review the historical development of this idea and I treat this in my current essay. I hope you will read it and comment.

You say "we should all be considering what sort of 'immaterial' media might produce the effects we find, such as 'matter'! The other massive but less visible 'elephant in the room' is what we call 'gravity'. Amen!

You say "...idiom that physics is not about new findings but finding 'new ways' of seeing what we've already found has invariably proved correct with hindsight." For example, few believe that the math of quantum mechanics will change, but the many interpretations of QM will hopefully be supplanted by a "new way of seeing". Similarly, in my essay, I point to a derivation of the Lorentz transform in one inertial frame that offers a different way of seeing what has always been derived in two inertial frames. Of course, "that can't be right is it varies from current adopted theory."

If we had written our essays to support each other I don't think we would have done much differently.

Thanks for your contribution, and your participation.

Very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

richard nixey

Thank you Edwin , it would seem that in virtually every discipline the current held views maybe suspect. I will read your essay as soon as time permits, Richard

richard nixey

Edwin. I've now read you essay and posted on your string. I did find some commonality in concept and even the the science in places but you didn't offer me a drink!

You certainly seem to have been busy and have over 50 times the reads and posts I have. I must leave more posts when I read them!

Richard

Edwin Klingman

Richard,

If you check back, you will see that in my response to your comment, I did offer you a drink!

As for number of comments, it's time-consuming, but I learn a lot and share info.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter Jackson

Richard,

Great essay, brief but conclusively identifying the right KIND of reductionism is what's needed. You should like mine which distinguishes and employs it to a non-arbitrary limit.

I agree you were also spot on with the common flawed argument about the problems of advancement from outdated theories from the typical response

"Yes we're aware it's incomplete and has inconsistencies, but it's the best we have so far" Then presented with new concepts we glance at them and often dismiss them, saying; "No that can't be right as it varies from current adopted theory"."

Of course it often ISN'T 'the best' but just the only one they're familiar with so will countenance! Such is (lack of) advancement.

If you understand the causes of the weirdness in QM please do comment on my quick shocking new classical derivation which may well suffer from the above issue as mainstream turns and scatters! What price the SM?

Do also look at Declan Trail's short essay containing the algorithmical confirmation of a classical derivation of QM.

Very well done, and so much nicer and easier to read than many. I'll be scoring on reading over half and I judge yours as undervalued so far so expect a boost.

Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

richard nixey

Peter

Thanks for your comments. Reductionism certainly is a more complex topic than most here seem to assume.

Yes I am interested in QM which I've alweays thought exposes our stupidity. I've read your and Declans's essays and checked through your mechanism carafully. As my comment there, I not only found it correct but think it's quite brilliant! But I agree on your chances of educating those who should but think they do know better! I wish you all the luck there.

I certainly score you a 10. Well deserved.

Richard

Satyavarapu Gupta

Hi Dr richard kingsley nixey

Very nice words "Reductionism in science, looking for the smallest possible entities and 'causes' has been discredited philosophically for not being able to explain effects such as 'intuition'. That assumption may now be argued to be false" Dr richard kingsley nixey.................. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.... 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

Kamal Rajpal

Dear Richard Kingsley-Nixey,

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

I also invite you to 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

richard nixey

Kamal,

I saw the tv series. Pretty cool. Little time so just reading essays for now. Some comment on mine would have been better, but I'll try and should get to yours before the deadline.

Richard

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear Richard,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

I completely agree with you. «Perhaps it's that fear of deviating from whatever 'sound basis' we can find iswhat prevents us from analysing and rationalising what underlies accepted doctrine. Perhaps only when we do so, genuinely look, will we finally find what's truly fundamental inthe universe».

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

richard nixey

Vladimir

Thank you. Yours is now on my short list.

Richard

Steven Andresen

Dear Richard

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

Sue Lingo

Hi Richard...

Your observation on "expectation of reductionists that some 'super theory' may arise from a reduction of present theories" is highly perceptive and echoes Karen Crowther's essay "When do we stop digging?":

"The idea of unification is not just that there be a single theory describing all phenomena, but that it describe all phenomena as the same as fundamentally stemming from a single origin, e.g., as manifestations of a single entity or interaction."

REF: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3034

In that theory is "formulation of apparent relationships or principles of specified observed phenomena... and knowledge of it's principles and methods"~ Webster

If formulation of relationships requires a Spatial measurement, then a minimum unit of Spatial measurement is fundamental to the theory... i.e. a theory is fundamental only in that it places constraints on formulation.

In that we do not have a model of minimum units of Space and/or Energy, theorizing "what form 'dark energy' might take" is pure speculation.

Accuracy is definitely a matter of observational scale, and at any given time=t, from the observer's scale of observation, if a condition is apparently un-resolved/inaccurate, it might not hurt to immediately report any disharmony to the Cosmic Computer... i.e. in that Energy/Space distribution for the entire field must resolve on each Source pulse, it can not be said to be deterministic, but some fundamental mechanism is "entirely accurate"... precisely so!

To resolve Energy/Space distribution on each pulse, the pulse rate of the Cosmic Computer clock ticks incomprehensibly fast, and digital technology has made a case that altering a single coded bit, can vastly alter the output/functionality of the program, potentially facilitating spontaneous harmonious resolve, at the observer's scale of events.

Digital technology has also extended "observable scales" by means of virtual visual conceptualization... e.g. a logic reduction to an Energy emission equal in all directions from a single Source point, is now a visually verifiable geometry virtuallity... facilitating a "rational" approach for analysis of "effects found, apparently as a result of what we can't directly observe".

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Mathematical physics can offer a coherent 'assembly' of the "evidence needed to advance understanding that already exists, but to preserve "Scientific method", that mathematics must provide visual verifiable kinematics from "what we've already found" to the "new way of seeing", and Digital SIM is my computational analysis tool of choice for animating pulsed distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) over time, as a constant pulse rate, within a CAD environment quantized by a 3D unified field single point origin encapsulation geometry.

REF: Geometry Paradigms http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php]

Thanks Richard, for voting as a reductionist in this "What is fundamental?" contest, and for your enthusiastic support of my essay.

Have read only a small fraction of essay's, but gotta get to the poll, so expect a bump soon.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechaix.com

richard nixey

Thanks Sue.

I see you've also sussed Peter Jacksons incredible 'model'. (Maybe that revolution finally IS on the way).

It's a comment on current Academics that so many here have failed in that.

I agree, things need to change.

Well deserved Bump coming.

Rich

Peter Jackson

Richard,

Thanks for your kind comments and being one of the few bothered to apply rational thinking to understand the classical 'QM' revolution. I suspect we'll find old beliefs to embedded in minds and doctrine for it to be rapid, but I've estimated just a few eons.

Top marks for your own essay on it's own merit. It's agreement with mine and your intellectual power and vision is just a bonus. If you can contribute to the project you're as welcome as any others.

Thank you kindly and best of luck.

Peter

[deleted]

Richard,

I had no compunction in scoring yours high to climb above mine. I think '1' bombers are a scourge which fqXi have a responsibility to, and the means to, stop. A simple warning added to the rules would do it; - 'If no post then no 1 or it may be shifted to your own'.

We should all get together to demand that (also make it less easy to loose posts by hitting wrong buttons!)

I see you support other consistent essays, see also Andrew Beckwith's essay which should be in the finals.

Good luck in the run in.

richard nixey

Peter (I assume)

Thanks. I think yours should be well above mine and I'm scoring it accordingly. Indeed it's the best one here by a mile, real fundamental advancement in action.

I'll look at Andrew Beckwith's. I've read Knuths and Camerons after seeing their comments on yours and I'm scoring those high as well, also McHarris & Roychowthingy. I'm less of a fan of the 'conversation' format, but I did like most others near the top plus D'Isa and Lingo.

I agree something should be done to remove the temptation to mark down neighbours, but I don't think I'm in the right club to actually win a prize.

Best of luck with yours, and the project. Revolution indeed!

Rich