Faith is Fundamental by George Gantz

George,

I assume that your statement 'that faith may be interfering with physics' alludes to the perceived irreconcilable relationship between faith and reason, by which I am interpreting your interpretation of 'faith' as being religious convictions.

But the term 'faith' has much wider, generally applicable meanings; that of conviction, trust, reliance, assurance, belief, devotion, loyalty, etc. that are often applicable to scientific theories that have not been established and endorsed as 'true'. Indeed what scientific knowledge is unequivocally certain and correct for all time? Your point is well taken when you state 'There are some conundrums in mathematics, however, that will never be solved'; not withstanding our understanding that 'never' is a long, long time. As you have further stated; 'the incompleteness findings apply to every branch of mathematics.' From a practical point of view we need not seek perfection in terms of the absolute truth but rather proceed until we have achieved tentative conclusions that have utility values.

Concerning your question 'How does intelligence emerge from unintelligent components?'; your answer preceded your question; i.e. that 'all interesting structures' ... 'exhibit increases in order, structure and variety quite at odds with the Second Law' 'All' is a dangerous word to use but I get the gist of your point - that evolution compounds complexity.

The notion that '... anomalies are all explainable within the laws of nature' is more succinctly posited if we substitute the word 'principles' for 'laws'. Strict laws are absolute while principles accommodate deviations within limits.

To state that there are 'no' non-physical causes the 'no' cannot be confirmed (much like 'never' and 'all' referred to above). These terms should not be used if we are trying to convey the truth as we know it. If there is a God he (she or it) may well call you to account unless he elects to expose himself physically.

The issue of a single universe vs. the multiverse theory is not going away soon. I think that you are correct in suggesting that 'the choice boils down to an ideological one - what are you comfortable in believing?'

Your conclusion is exquisitely stated.

Thank you.

Gary.

Hi George Gantz

Very good flow of writing ... "our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith" is correctly said Best wishes to the essay , hope this also will go better than ..."Tip of the spear" dear George Gantz

............. 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

Hi George,

I find you just amazing! Your writing radiates peace and well being AND provides well thought out content. You give every visitor to your blog something that will help them. In the last essay contest I was grousing about Max Tegmark and how he used the contest to further his own agenda...Your response to me was "sometimes you just have to go for the bait".... I started laughing and am still laughing!

You could have used the word "belief" instead of "faith" in the title of this work and gotten a higher score. But that is not how you work... faith is closer to what is really fundamental.

Thanks for lighting up this contest.

Don Limuti

George,

Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have scored yours on 1/23. Thanks for your kind words about mine.

Jim Hoover

Dear George Gantz,

excuse me that I write my comment without blank lines - the fqxi's formatting system seems to have a bug. I read your essay and must say that you present well-balanced and reasonable arguments to handle the question "what is fundamental?". Not only are your arguments reasonable intellectually, but they also consider the emotional part of every human being - be it a scientist, philosopher, biologist or otherwise interested reader of the essay contest's topic. You present valuable and logical arguments, and none of them try to eliminate the very tool with which we can come to our conclusions, namely consciousness. Moreover, it seems to me that you take it as not irrational to conclude from the existence of consciousness that the latter has to play a certain important role for answering the essay contest's question, since without consciousness, there would be no question. Again, moreover, you value the fact that there are not only self-aware beings, but these beings are also aware of an external reality which surprisingly can be modeled to a certain degree by mathematics. All in all I like your essay very much, since it is out-of-the-box of exclusively arguing only for fitting certain mainstream ideas. It escapes the transformation of physics into another social science, but keeps the psychology, the very causa finalis that drives all participants trying to fathom the depths of existence and its overall meaning. In my opinion your essay is too important to be not under the finalists and I give you my 10 points so it may succeed this purpose and we can see how the judges decide. Since in this forum it may well happen that you are downrated after some good score, I tell you that you are now by 5.9 with 8 ratings and you will be by approximately 6.4 and 9 ratings after my scoring.

Dear George Gantz,

Congratulations on a thoughtful and perceptive essay. I particularly liked the remark 'the unexamined faith is not worth believing in'!

Best Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

George,

An excellent essay again and great pleasure to read. Thank you. I agree infinity is beyond our understanding and a 'god' in some way seems inevitable if undecidable. Your analysis of all you covered was nicely judged for the level and length here. One of the best again I think.

But did you know John Bell was convinced a classical derivation of QM's prediction WAS possible (but "will astonish") and indeed pointed the way? You may be interested in my essay which suggests you should perhaps have extended your sentence;

"Considerable experimental and intense theoretical efforts have been devoted to the resolution of these issues. These efforts have been unsuccessful." ..with "...to date". A different starting assumption endowing pairs with Maxwell's 4 conjugate states appears astonishingly to overcome the barriers to a classical solution!!

Of course the academic community will fight to Max Plancks last coffin before adopting any such thing! But see also Declan Traill's essay with the computer code and plot consistent with the ontology.

Very well done for yours again.

Best of luck in the judging.

Peter

Hello Mr Gantz,

Congratulations for your essay about faith.It is theologically wonderfull.:) God does not play at dices but with sphères :) The aether seems gravitational ....

Best Regards

Dear George,

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

It is so close to me. «our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith». «I suggest that faith may be interfering with physics». «What is the cause of the emergent order?» «I have also questioned a number of apparent beliefs that are interfering with our full and open exploration of our world. Among these are the belief sets that I have referred to as physicalism, reductionism and determinism. I have also offered a specific critique of the commitment to randomness and its role in the justification of the multiverse theory».

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

Dear George

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

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