Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin by Steven Andresen

Dear Steven,

Thanks for taling time to read my essay, as you posted in the dedicated section. I had already read your interesting work and also rated it. I hooe you get more visibility and votes.

Good luck!

Flavio

Dear Steven,

You ask very deep questions and give answers that lead to the deepest metaphysics. The metaphysics of the process, the new ontology, bring ideas to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Mother Nature tells us new concepts and makes us start a new dialogue. Success in the contest and research!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Dear Steven, nice and original Essay, congrats. Here are my comments, which concern gravitation because I am a gravity's physicist. 1) Your idea of a natural energy potential is intriguing. Its application to Dark Energy corresponds to the existence of an intrinsic curvature in extended theories of gravity. This paper of mine operates in that sense. 2) Strictly speaking, the deviations from theoretical predictions referred to as anomalous galaxy velocity are not deviation from general relativity. They are deviation from Newtonian gravitation instead. This is due to the issue that Einstein's equivalence principle prevents to localize gravitational energy. As a consequence, the total energy is frame-dependent. There are indeed various attempts to explain both Dark Matter and Dark Energy as frames artifacts, despite none of those is today considered definitive. 3) MOND is a non-relativistic theory of gravity. Thus, it needs a relativistic counter-part which cannot be general relativity, but an extended theory. With some colleagues, I have developed an approach in that sense. In any case, I find your Essay very innovative and entertaining. It deserves my high score. Congrats again and good luck in the Contest. Cheers, Ch.

Dear Steven Andresen, you have very interesting reflections. I agree with you that "There isprospect that evolutionary theory can serve as a natural organisational principle, that reasons theseproperties of the world." I was more interested in thinking about slowing down time. In New Cartesian Physics I applied this to explain the stability of microparticles. They are vortices of space, in the center of which the speed of movement reaches the speed of light, therefore time in them slows down and they do not disintegrate. Look at my page , FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating after becoming acquainted with the Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Steven

Thanks for your note on mine. (I'm sure it wasn't you who gave it the '1' today!) I loved your intro. You'll note in my bio I'm a rep level sailor. I've found it seminal in understanding nature and have written papers on it. I took some Kent & Delft students on a cross channel race last year. Using & teaching inertial 'tidewind' effects we did managed you may have heard of as a 'horizon job'!

You outline a highly unique and original idea showing unbounded thinking, which I like. I found the model itself fascinating. You'll see I'm also an open minded astrophysicist studying 20 papers a week for the data (much analysis is flawed!). Agreement with content isn't a scoring criteria here, but ALL novel ideas should be assessed. I did see some flawed starting assumptions, but that's common even among astronomers. i.e. the old galaxy merger idea and clock rate changes just aren't found. (Hafele & Keating had to revise their initial 'atomic clocks' report to comply with theory to get their PhD's!). Digital clocks would also seem an issue anyway, and your inferences from the Tulley-Fisher relation seems to have problems needing investigation, so there are many issues to be addressed. I see others also identify some above.

None the less it was novel, nicely written and interesting so I think worth a good score. It also included a number of matter I agree on, including that 'inanimate' is a poor concept, that MOND and indeed many current assumptions ARE wrong, and that QM and relativity need a common cause and treatment of time. (You'll have seen I present a consistent classical derivation in my own essay which I hope you understand. It DOES take good visualisation!)

Very nicely done. Keep up the research. I'll give you a link link to my own papers if I didn't know you were busy reading essays!

Best of luck

Peter

Steven, I'm not sure where all those 'n's came from or where the breaks went! Trying again.;

Thanks for your note on mine. I'm sure it wasn't you who gave it the '1' today! Loved your intro. You'll note in my bio I'm a rep level sailor. I've found it seminal in understanding nature and have written papers on it. I took some Kent & Delft students on a cross channel race last year. Using & teaching inertial 'tidewind' effects we did what you may know as a 'horizon job'!

You outline a highly unique and original idea showing unbounded thinking, which I like. I found the model itself fascinating. You'll see I'm also an open minded astrophysicist studying 20 papers a week for the data (much analysis is flawed!). Agreement with content isn't a scoring criteria here, but ALL novel ideas should be assessed. I did see some flawed starting assumptions, but that's common even among astronomers. i.e. the old galaxy merger idea and clock rate changes just aren't found. (Hafele & Keating had to revise their initial 'atomic clocks' report to comply with theory to get their PhD's!). Digital clocks would also seem an issue anyway, and your inferences from the Tulley-Fisher relation seems to have problems needing investigation, so there are many issues to be addressed. I see others also identify some above.

None the less it was novel, nicely written and interesting so I think worth a good score. It also included a number of matter I agree on, including that MOND and indeed many current assumptions ARE wrong, and that QM and relativity need a common cause and treatment of time. (You'll have seen I present a consistent classical derivation in my own essay which I hope you understand. It DOES take good visualisation!)

Very nicely done. Keep up the research. I'll give you a link link to my own papers if I didn't know you were busy reading essays!

Best of luck

Peter

ok, I give up! hope you can read it ok.

Best, peter

Steven,

Excellent essay. Great beginning in spirit and principle with letting nature overtake you. And the structure of your essay tends to augment your message. You introduce the elements which the natural forces of Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin work on with the principles of evolution. Have you read Jeremy England and natural forces: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/? Seem to fit in with your quantum forces, energy bath, natural energy, and the natural forces mentioned like generational exchange.

Hope you can check mine out.

I highly rate yours.

Jim Hoover

Steven,

Looks like someone took note of your excursion and gave you a 1 or a 2 after my 9. I take note because I have already gotten a 2 and a 1 w/o any comment.

Jim

Dear Steven,

I read with interest your views on dark matter. Please read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf and reply.

Kamal,

Steven Andresen

I have read your article. It was interesting. You have many new ideas.

I find that, regarding time, I have a concept very different from Yours. I regard clock behavior as caused by a physical process, sensitive to the ether wind, and without dilation of time. Take a look.

Best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson

Steven,

Thank you for reading my paper "Physical Fundamentals, Math Fundamentals, Idea Fundamentals - Have We Spotted Them All?" and recommending yours.

I applaud your effort to look at the spectrum of complex phenomena - from physics to biological - and ask that science appreciates that they must embody essential shared qualities. Which properties need fresh descriptions to unify. My own work promotes that notion also.

To your specific paper, from my own experience of the topic as a biologist, I would warn you from using biology .. Darwinian processes .. even the shared notion of 'emergence' .. as a discussion basis. It is similar to asking a science to discuss QM events as 'color'. Different levels of organization have qualia, and they don't always map exactly.

I recommend you look at process dynamics that are shared and avoid subjective labels. Darwinian processes are events that occur because of agent~environment option spaces, and possible outcomes. THAT is the shared functional action options space with metabolisms, chemicals, atomic fields/particles.

Action relations that can build Darwinian activities exists in the core architecture of existence, even though nothing at the core levels are 'alive' in the Darwinian sense.

Regarding your remarks about 'time', you identify different events that need better coordination, but going metaphysical I would suggest, is problematic.

I have started analyzing time as its own set of dimensions, as a possible solution. It might be worth your thought to look at multiple dimensioned Time as a better domain model, to account for all the different properties we associate with time passage. I know that seems strange to consider, but restricting our models to a single time line no longer seems proper, after Einstein and alternative frames of reference with different rates of passage or 'time' are observed. Time is no longer a monolith. It has plural expressions ... simultaneously.

That phenomena has not been clearly examined and modeled.

I look forward to your reply, your thoughts.

James Rose

"Physical Fundamentals, Math Fundamentals, Idea Fundamentals - Have We Spotted Them All?"