Essay Abstract

How strange it seems that an institution of world-class scientists and established for the purpose of focusing on "questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology" itself has put out the call for input on the meaning of "fundamental". The wording, "what exactly 'foundational' means, and what relation it holds to 'fundamental' as a term describing some branches of physics" suggests that the meaning that gives the Foundational Questions Institute (FXQI) its force and purpose might be extrapolated from or characterized by all the instances of meaning of "fundamental", as though a sampling survey is being done. Here, the essence of "fundamental" would have to be known to recognize the parameters used in searching for it. That the question is in a metalanguage - object language form (filling with content the container "fundamental"), because so many variants exist ("fundamental" being an adjective), and because so many of these variants refer to "reality", "existence", etc., the discussion is best handled not by iterating numerous examples (impossible to do in this short space) but deferring to philosophy. It turns out that what "fundamental" does mean is the quest, itself (process as object), asking about existence, why we are here, the nature of time, and so forth, the same questions that have been addressed for millennia by philosophers and scientists philosophically inclined. To say that the meaning of "fundamental" in an absolutist way cancels the need for that process, something that FXQI would find disconcerting, to say the least. Neither can there be any such static conclusions, lest anyone proclaim herself/himself as "God". Instead, Conclusion describes a dialectic exists within us to discern how the vessel of foundation is filled with the contents from the fundamental one.

Author Bio

Jeremy Horne received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Florida State University in 1988, concentrating in political philosophy, logic, the history of philosophy, and philosophy of education. He also holds a Masters in political science from Southern Connecticut State University and a bachelors from the Johns Hopkins University. He is president emeritus of the Southwest Area Meeting (division) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Currently, he is the science advisor and curriculum coordinator the Inventors Assistance League. His works may be accessed at: https://sites.google.com/site/yourmindshomepage/ and www.academia.edu .

Download Essay PDF File

I have a correction to make -

It is FQXI, not FXQI. Duh! It is good to know for whom or what organization I am writing. Excuse: my eyesight is failing, and I also may be somewhat dyslexic.

The, if I were able to upload a corrected version, I might change the conclusion a bit to say that the MEANING of "fundamental" is within ourselves, rather than our being fundamental.

I apologize the the error. While "FXQI" may go out of existence, surely (I hope) FQXI will not.

I am attaching what I hope are the corrected versions of the abstract and content.Attachment #1: What_it_means_to_be_fundamental-Abstract-Jeremy_Horne-corrected.pdfAttachment #2: What_it_means_to_be_fundamental-body_only-Jeremy_Horne-corrected.pdf

Dear Dr Jeremy Horne,

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.

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.

Joe Fisher, Realist

    In principle or form of the thesis your comments appear at least at first glance to be similar to those of John Wheeler in his one-electron universe. Feynman replied with his "The Theory of Positrons". Hence, your "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface" might be translated as that single electron, the "visibility" being the effects of that electron. Perhaps you might want to research this.

    I sincerely appreciate your comments. Thank you for your kind words. What a great way to have my morning start by reading your post.

    Best wishes,

    Jeremy

    Dear Jeremy Horne, well you said:

    "Now - we are getting closer - philosophy of physics. We are trapped within ourselves; it is we,

    ourselves, who are the linchpins of what is the most fundamental. We are the most basic, not derivable

    anything else, unique, and all of that. Philosophers refer to the "fishbowl" in which we live, and we only

    can see ourselves (and our world) only through ourselves"

    In the end, everything depends on the question - what is primary: matter or idea? We leave ideas to philosophers, and let the matter be studied by physicists, for them it is the foundation for their fundamental theories. At a certain moment, matter began to disappear, turning into energy or a wave. To restore its category status, now it is necessary to recall the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes. When Copernicus began to assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun, he had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth around the Sun, the entire circumsolar space rotates. Read my essay, in it I show how physics can change if this principle of Descartes is applied.

    Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

    Dear Jeremy Horne,

    thank you very much for your essay, which I found very interesting and pleasurable to read. I agree with you that such a question can't ignore philosophy (I could not participate otherwise), and to revolve a question against itself - as you have done - is always a good way to explore it deeply.

    You write that:

    > I will show that not only the answers above are contextual but why any answer we give has to be so and not absolute.

    I perfectly agree, but can't we look at what you said as a "fundamental answer"? Maybe also an absolute one?

    Moreover you write,

    > the manner in which I arrive at the answer is just as much an answer as the answer, itself

    I agree once again. But why some answers are more persuasive than others? Why they win over the others, even if (usually) for a limited time?

    Once again, these are philosophical questions, a discipline where, as you showed, to investigate about the question itself leads to more and more questions.

    Good luck with your essay!

    Francesco

    Thank you for your kind words, Francesco .

    Some not closely edited musings follow, perhaps somewhat rambling, perhaps not. Are not philosophers entitled to their practice sessions?

    Re: "...some answers are more persuasive than others...". Here, I think a closer look at the nature of preference is in order. If one subscribes to the idea of there being innate/deep structures in our universe, then I would look to some manifestations of preference, as in chirality, or "handedness". We see this throughout the Universe, as in spirals, planetary rotations, and so forth. In humans, we have an analogous phenomenon - the preference of one hand over the other. To become more abstract and basic, in a spacetime without any objects, there is implicit and potential directionality, i.e., preference. What generates a preference innately, as in chirality I suspect at a fundamental level (if you will) may be related to what generates human preference. As to humans, keep in mind my discussion about consciousness. Here I am going to make an assumption, that whatever (the singularity) has generated the phenomenological universe generated "consciousness" (any mentation, as well - ideas, psyche, etc.), as well. This means that overall, preference, or more precisely, that which generates it, was bound up with the singularity, as well. It might be considered as one of those physical laws. Keep in mind that the existence of ANYTHING perforce implies that there is the preference. Preference at this level of analysis has the dialectic of non-preference. Preference in its "raw" sense is the identification of something (at the exclusion - the dialectic) of what it is not.

    Some scattered notes -

    In discussing preference this way, I start looking towards the thinking a la Hegel, Merleau-Ponty, Hume, Plato, and just about everyone else, and I think you might see why. Philosophy is all about understanding "reality", "reality", itself being a "preference", I suppose. You see, as I go along I cannot escape this dimensionality of the dialectic. Reality? What it is not is "fantasy". The "real" and the "ideal". What exists (an exercise in preference) and how does it do so. Preference is object-oriented (as opposed to process). Preference is about stasis, something that appeal to Parmenides. Yet, it has to be in terms of what it is not, as in Heraclitus. Both philosophers argued that their was for eternity - either ongoing stasis or displacement, but the dialectics has one Parmenides IN TERMS OF Heraclitus.

    As to "...but can't we look at what you said as a "fundamental answer"?", you are perfectly correct in that the meaning of "fundamental" at least incorporates if not actually IS that dialectic, itself - existence of ___ in terms of what it is not. This is extremely and I would argue THE most abstract AND fundamental - it is the "going back and forth" between something and what it is not that characterizes the dialectic. I think it can be argued that our being able to "locate" this "process" is dimensionally-bound, not unlike Abbott's (Flatland) two-dimensional persons not being able to apprehend the third dimension (as in a raindrop falling on the planar field). The dialectic manifests its through everything; it "supports" existence, and surely this in our limited apprehension of dimensionality is foundational. To an entity in a fourth or 4th-plus dimension, there might be not be an apprehension problem. It would be just as apprehensible to these 4th dimensional beings just as three dimensions are to us but not to Abbott's two-dimensional persons. As to seeing things through ourselves and what is fundamental, again, I would say that this is "dialectics at work". I did not put this explicitly in my first version of the essay, but I could say that the meaning of "fundamental" and that which IS fundamental merges in that dialectic of our apprehending the world through ourselves.

    In your final remark, you rightly note, I think, "the question itself leads to more and more questions". Here, too, is a process but one manifested from the dialectic, discerning [fill in this space] in terms of what it is not. That we are in this dialectic perforce is that which engenders the leading to more and more questions. Recursing back to the previous, this process of "leading" is in its fundamental (just can't seem to avoid this word) sense that "character of physical law" so aptly described by Feynman.

      Dear Dr Jeremy Horne,

      VISIBLE infinite surface has absolutely nothing to do with any INVISIBLE finite abstract electron.

      This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

      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.

      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.

      Only the truth can set you free.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Jeremy,

      thank you for your insightful answer! I agree on many points.

      > Philosophy is all about understanding "reality", "reality", itself being a "preference", I suppose. You see, as I go along I cannot escape this dimensionality of the dialectic.

      You expressed what I think it's a very important concept, especially while defining what's "fundamental". My essay starts from a similar idea as well, and leads to absolute relativism.

      All the best and thank you again!

      Francesco

      8 days later

      Prof Jeremy Horne

      Wonderful thinking............ 'The wording, "what exactly 'foundational' means, and what relation it holds to 'fundamental' as a term describing some branches of physics" ..... because so many variants exist ("fundamental" being an adjective), and because so many of these variants refer to "reality", "existence", etc.,...... asking about existence, why we are here, the nature of time, and so forth, the same questions that have been addressed for millennia by philosophers and scientists philosophically inclined. Really a metaphysical thinking sir.... By the way....

      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

        7 days later

        Thanks for your kind words. As to your "Dynamic Universe Model" I am not versed well enough in astrophysics to reply in sufficient detail. However, my eyebrows are raised in your denying black holes "warm holes (sic), "interdependencies between axes", and "Bigbang", issues that a competent astrophysicist can give you valuable insight. Your material is rather voluminous (eg: "21000 linear equations") and would require many hours to give a detailed reply from my logical, philosophical, and other viewpoints, such as "time ... moving forward only". My suggestion is two-stepped. First, I'd post a summary of it on a website, like www physicsforums dot com for comments. The utility of doing this can help you in assessing your statements about there being "... no experiment or quest in this direction." It may be that someone in that forum (or others) are aware of research. Then, taking into account those comments about your ideas, submit an article to a peer-reviewed publication (not on Beall's list). Good luck.

        J.

        9 days later

        Dear Jeremy

        If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

        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 and my essay 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. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then 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 attempt of 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 a 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 formation 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 chemistry processes arose.

        By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. 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 explain 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