The Perception of Order by Noson S. Yanofsky

Dear Professor Noson S. Yanofsky,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Noson;

I perceive your essay as a very didactic document to introduce the concept of Fundamental for science and philosophy; and to introduce the concept of order and disorder; which is the basis for studying reality. Without order no regularity (no natural law) would exist. So the fact that science and philosophy exist underlies the recognition that order exists, because that is what both science and philosophy study. Your essay is just an introduction to the topic.

Yours;

Diogenes

Professor Yanofsky,

What if reality is a dichotomy of energy and form(order)? That energy manifests form and form defines energy. That form doesn't exist in a void and energy is inherently finite and thus always expressing form, like frequency and amplitude.

Consider that after a few billion years of evolution, we evolved a central nervous system to process information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy.

That galaxies are composed of energy radiating out, as structure coalesces in.

Since energy is dynamic and conserved, it is always and only present, so that it is its changing configuration which creates the effect of time.

As our thought process is flashes of cognition, we think of time as the point of the present, "moving" past to future, but really it is change turning future to past. As in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. So energy goes past to future, while form goes future to past. Much as those galaxies are the convection cycle of mass falling through energy radiating out.

It is just that since our cognitive functions process form, that we naturally focus on this aspect of it and are constantly trying to quantify energy down to its smallest units, but the more we focus on one parameter, the blurrier others get. Indeterminacy.

As time is an effect of of action, it is similar to temperature, rather then space. While our rational functions are sequential, like time, our emotions and physiology are much more thermally based and thermodynamically cyclical.

Even our thought process is a cycle of absorbing energy/information, consolidating useful signals and repeat.

Consider a factory, where the product goes start to finish, as the process goes the other way, consuming material and expelling product. Life is similar. The individual goes from birth to death, while the species is moving onto the next generation, shedding the old. Consciousness and thought function this way as well, as consciousness goes past to future, while thoughts go future to past.

Dear Noson S. Yanofsky,

I enjoyed your essay and your emphasis on "how the laws of nature are found", essentially through our ability to perceive 'patterns' or 'symmetrical order'.

Your discussion of various instances was appropriate, and your discussion of "the nature of the laws of nature" thought-provoking. But for me the most powerful part of your essay was the use of a random matrix and filters to extract or expose order so easily. I'm very impressed by this example. The patterns are indeed worth thousands of words.

I hope you will read my current essay and comment on it.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Noson,

I'm very happy to see your contribution to this contest. You highlight a number of important issues that are often glossed over, regarding the question of how we can come up with theories of physics in the first place---as you say, there must be certain kinds of order for this to happen. In a sense, this makes our world very special---it seems like there are many worlds that one could imagine where no such order is present; 'high entropy'-worlds in a meta-sense.

I like the distinction you draw between symmetrical and ensemble order. There seems to be the possibility for an iterative process of increased understanding: a given ensemble might be one PPP in a set of PPPs related by a symmetry (sort of 'zooming out' the point of view), while that set itself might be a new ensemble.

Perhaps it's by such an iterated process that higher levels of order can be extracted from the underlying chaos: there is, first, an ensemble of 'regular' strings, we can group into certain classes---repetitions, sequences, digits of pi, and so on. The ensemble of such classes may then have additional regularities, which again can be grouped... And so on.

There are intriguing examples of how laws can emerge from random processes, too---all that's needed is that the progression towards higher entropy can be described by an effective regularity. Johannes Koelmann gives and interesting example of this type with his mikado universe, which illustrates how an increase in entropy may lead to a law of attraction between two 'voids' in a universe of 'strands' that may be on or off.

Thanks for an intriguing essay. I hope you'll find some time to have a look at mine---I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts!

Dear Dr Noson S. Yanofsky,

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real 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.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

Joe Fisher, Realist

I suggest that 'Order' (as arrangement), seen or unseen, is always present as an inevitable fact of nature. Everything is in order at all times, albeit continuously changeable. It is 'Patterns' rather than 'Order' that are subjective perceptions (or what you call illusions) that differ and to which we each attach different degrees of significance.

Concerning the term 'Fundamental', the concept may be used in reference to the essential constituent of a specific phenomenon; or to infer a universal foundation underlying everything. It is important to realize that this distinction is not obvious in reading the FQXi essay contest subject and, in its absence, each contributor is free to elect which (fundamental) path to take.

While symmetry is familiar to all of us, to designate it as a 'law of nature' is a bit of a stretch. Look around, has anybody ever seen a symmetrical tree? Perhaps 'approximate equilibrium' is a more fitting descriptor of this perception (or order if you prefer).

Further, we need to examine the question of there being 'laws' of nature. Insofar as laws are generally regarded as being finite, any given circumstance either complying or not; a better, more moderate way to describe the governing influences bearing upon nature would suggest that nature is directed by 'principles' that accommodate flexibility.

Dear Noson,

thank for sharing your essay, which I found very interesting. The idea of the necessity of order within chaos due a large amount of facts is very stimulating.

You write that,

> The order that we see is only an illusion. However, this ability to have such an illusion is real and very fundamental.

and

> In conclusion, it is not strange to find some patterns in our random matrix. Similarly, it is not strange that we find order in the world around us.

Following your thoughts I was wondering if we should consider more fundamental chaos, instead of one of the many orders who emerge from it. Moreover, things would change drastically if that "chaos" would be infinite, instead of "very huge"...

Good luck with the contest, your essay is worthy for sure!

Francesco

Noson,

"Our perception of order is the only true fundamental" you conclude. One perceives order in symmetry and the other in ensemble, but are only subjective. My reasoning is similar in that I believe the fundamental does not exist without the consciousness of the sentient being and the subject or concept being investigated. The fundamental being absolutely necessary for existence, it does not exist without perception.

I would assume you might say that that illusion does not exist without the observer since the fundamental is only perception. I would like to hear you views on mine as well.

Jim Hoover

Respected Prof Noson S. Yanofsky

You wrote wonderfully...." over the millennia, various objects, laws, and concepts have been considered fundamental........but perception of order remained fundamental as Scientists have the ability to observe the seemingly chaotic universe around them and perceive order. We describe two methods that are used to determine such order............." very nice.....

And....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope 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

Dear Prof. Yanofsky,

It was a pleasure to read your essay. I totally agree with you that symmetries will be our guiding principle in finding deeper physical laws. On the one hand the unification of interactions, and on the other hand, finding a theory of quantum gravity, will reveal newer symmetries. I also feel geometry will play a central role - we see a greater and greater progress towards generalized geometries, non-commutative geometry being one example.

Do you think there are ultimate building blocks of matter? I am also curious whether for you mathematics is Platonic, or is it a mental model on which everyone is in agreement?

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Dear Noson,

thank you very much for your answer! Yes, I agree. But if the universe is chaotic, even if we would still find structure in it, that chaos would be more fundamental, or not?

All the best!

Francesco