Nicely written Mr. Knott!

Permit me a couple of questions for a more clear understanding

1. "...but even quantum mechanics is time-symmetrical if no "measurements" are performed..." can you explain in few words what you meant? In my head, confusion arises when I look the term "symmetry" as a consequence (not strictly, but dependent) of "something measured". I mean, I can call something to be symmetrical only after I observe it. I think, though, that maybe you wanted to say something else , or there is something that I didn't get

2. "But we do not yet know how likely the emergence of life is, never mind the emergence of intelligent life" What kind of difference do you see between "life" and "intelligent life"?

3. "From this perspective, given only the fundamental laws of our universe and the arrangement of the particles within it, we can explain the emergence of the fantastic array of complex structures that fill our cosmos" what would it be fundamental in this perspective?

Until now, I think I can give you a 9, but I will wait for your replay on the first two questions mentioned above (as the third one more like a rhetorical one). Whatever the answers I will not rate less then 9

If you do have the time and patience for another (related) essay, here you have it.

Respectfully,

Silviu

    Dear Silviu,

    Thanks for reading my essay and for these interesting questions.

    1. Most of the fundamental laws of physics are symmetrical in time, meaning that if we reversed time in the equations then we would see the same dynamics. For example, if we reversed time in the general relativity equations then the planets would still orbit the sun in the same manner. But one main exception to this is quantum mechanics (at least, textbook quantum mechanics). Say we have an electron in a superposition of having spin up and spin down. If we measure the electron, we only measure it as having spin up or spin down. But this process doesn't work in reverse: we can't "un-measure" the electron!

    Potentially my use of the word "symmetrical" is misleading - sorry if this was confusing. But when you say "I can call something to be symmetrical only after I observe it", I'm not sure if I agree with this. We can consider the motion of the planets without having to observe them, and using Einstein's equations we can conclude that their motion is time-symmetrical.

    Does this clear things up at all?

    2. It seems plausible that we might find traces of life in our solar system, for example on Mars or one of the moons of Jupiter. But if we do, it seems likely that we will only find traces of very simple organisms, with a similar complexity to bacteria, for example. If we did find life such as this in our solar system, then this provides evidence that given a stable solar system there is a reasonable probability that life will emerge, and we could then look for other solar systems and assess whether they are likely to contain life.

    But finding intelligent life is a whole other story. Despite us humans observing the cosmos for over 100 years, we haven't yet found any sign of intelligent life in the universe, even though we might expect that intelligent life would leave some sort of "footprint", such as unnatural radio signals. And seeing that intelligent life would have to evolve from simpler life, simple life forms will be more common, and more likely to emerge, than more complex and intelligent life.

    What do you think?

    Thanks for pointing to your essay -- I read it with interest and leave a comment if I have any questions.

    Best regards,

    Paul

    You've been very clear about the first question, thank you.

    regarding the second one, I can understand what you are saying but nevertheless you didn't point any direct differentiation between the two forms of life. The question remains "What is the difference?" or more precisely if you like "The simple life form, dose not posses any intelligence at all?"

    Anyhow I rated you

    Respectfully,

    Silviu

      Dear Paul

      Did you get around to viewing my essay?

      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 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

        Paul,

        Dammit it got me again! Good answers. RNA wasn't against your conclusions just a test of your response to the notion I discussed last year.

        My essay is Absolute Simplicity,

        yet leads to a classical mechanism (string of interactions producing a 'measurement') reproducing QM which as you might imagine will take some concentration to first follow and hold in mind.

        I've also just found the Poincare Sphere has the orthogonal momenta my experiment confirms, which is the first part many brains 'reject' through unfamiliarity.

        See also Declan Traill's matching code and plot confirming the CHSH >2 violation. Shocking stuff!

        Very best

        Peter (Jackson - just in case!!)

        Paul,

        I popped my essay link above as requested (Jan 31 string) Hope you get to read it.

        I hope we may well agree our essays are equally excellent. Mine's been hit with a few 1's and I think a gentlemen's agreement not to mark down is in order as we have the same score. I'm also interested in your comments. The Classic QM sequence is hard to hold in mind at frost so I've just put a 'check list' on my string to help.

        Very well done for yours, and best of luck in the run in and judging.

        Peter

          Paul,

          Quantum Darwinism is as fascinating and intriguing a subject as quantum biology which caught my interest with Life on the Edge by Jim Al-Khalili in which he speaks of quantum coherence in warm, wet, turbulent systems such as plants and microbes. An article in Discovery Magazine describing Hameroff's microtubules in the brain's neurons, now, there is quantum Darwinism. Your description of generalized evolution makes perfect sense, as does biological Darwinism as a special case of it.

          In my last essay, "Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice," I cited a new theory by Jeremy England: "According to Dr. Jeremy England , a clump of atoms, when driven by some form of external energy, such as the Sun, and surrounded by a heat bath (ocean or atmosphere, for example), will always restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy into the surrounding environment. We are speaking of a mindless process where matter, is a dissipation-driven organization, that naturally seeks self-replication to ramp up its ability to dissipate energy." It speaks of a natural process driven by entropy. You might find this of interest, as well.

          In the context of your cogent description of generalized evolution taking us back to the theorized BB, Darwinian evolution seems quite fundamental. I too describe our concepts and efforts to unravel the mysteries of the universe's beginning but do not offer the descriptive basics you do to bring it into focus. At this late stage of the contest, I give you the highest marks. Hope you have time to check out my essay.

          Jim Hoover

            Paul,

            Someone visited you after I did w/o a comment. If you are keeping track, I gave you a 10 and you were riding in the 7.4 range.

            Jim

            This is a curious question. For the purpose of my essay, we only really need to distinguish between the intelligence of say a human, compared with a bacteria. In my opinion the intelligence difference is obvious here, without having to carefully or precisely define intelligence. But (having not thought about it for long) I guess I would define intelligence as the ability to achieve a given goal. Bacteria can achieve a very limited set of goals, whereas for humans the sky is the limit - we can achieve a far broader set of goals with increasing levels of subtlety and complexity, and we can invent tools such as computers to help us achieve even more elaborate goals.

            Would you think?

            Best,

            Paul

            Dear Steven,

            I will be honest in my reply: I am completely snowed under with work at the moment with numerous important deadlines, so unfortunately I am unable to read your essay soon. However, based on your description here it sounds very interesting so I will try to read it in the future.

            Best of luck to you too.

            Best regards,

            Paul

            Dear Peter,

            I will be honest in my response: I am completely snowed under with work at the moment with numerous important deadlines, so unfortunately I am unable to read your essay soon. However, from reading your abstract I hope (and intend) to read it soon. I will certainly not score you a 1. I also seem to have been hit recently with a few very low scores. I think that scoring 1 is a misunderstanding and misuse of the scoring system. No essay is worth 1, unless no effort has been put in at all.

            Best regards,

            Paul

            Dear Jim,

            I will be honest in my response: I am completely snowed under with work at the moment with numerous important deadlines, so unfortunately I am unable to read your essay at the moment. I hope to be free from these responsibilities soon, and after that I will read your essay as it sounds very interesting from your description here.

            Thank you for your generous rating! (Unfortunately my score has dropped somewhat since then!)

            Best,

            Paul

            Write a Reply...