Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin by Steven Andresen

Peter

Your essay is no minor piece. Infact surviving review, it would prove a ground-breaking work. My only reservation is to acknowledge my limited ability to qualify such a work.

I'm glad we share some general points of view, that science might be restored to a semblance of realism. That an imaginative leap might link QM and relativity, and that "time" is an important, if not the important component in unification. Your occupation will have honed your interpretative skills, and so I hope you will have properly appreciated by treatment of (clocks as a measure of QM force dilation, not time dilation). Forces drive clock function, so if times governance over forces cannot be redeemed by scientific explanation, then what's the justification for (clocks measure time?) Force dilation is an observable, quantifiable, and equivalent QM substitute for time dilation, applied to equivalent effect in relative motion and relative gravitational environments.

On another topic, I believe I may have something useful for you, regarding your resolution for Bells Inequality, and it is delivered by an observable. To sum up in simplest possible terms, you apply considerations of relative motions of 3D spherical bodies to decode Bells inequalities.

The observation

A pole or rod standing in a gravitational field, incrementally weighed as it is laid over, beginning at 90degrees from ground, and concluded at 0 degrees. Are you aware that the transitional weight profile matches the same curve as given by QM probability? This is fact, not theory!

What could a photons angle of approach to a polarization filter, and its probability of passing the filter or being stopped, possibly have in common with a poles incremental weight transition in a gravitational field, respective of that same angle? What could leaning photons and leaning poles have in common?

There is a forceful interaction between a pole and gravity, which is characterized by a poles balance and its resistance to the forceful effects of gravity. As the pole is incrementally laid over, gravity has an increasing proportion of leverage over the pole. Or you could term it as, the pole is losing its leveraged balance, and therefore its ability to resist force of gravity.

The photon and the polarisation filter clearly have a forceful interaction with one another. Whereby the filter is imposing a force on the photon, and changing its state/position/motion. And its fair to assume that the photon might have resistance to changes in its state/position/motion, dependent upon its angle to the filter, the leverage associated with that angle.

This is very simple, and might entirely capture the essence of your proposal. Summed up as an interaction between two elements whereby one exerts a force on the other, and the other expresses a forceful resistance to changes in state/position/motion, dependant on leverage at various angles.

I will be thankful for your opinion on this please?

Steven Andresen

James

Thank you for your message. I haven't yet read your essay, however as my message said, your essay is on my read list.

A biologist! and you've read my essay which advocates that the process responsible for generation of biological complexity, is also potentially responsible for generation of universal complexities, the character and complexity of matter, structure and process.

A Darwinian process which has been exclusively the domain of your field of study, you hesitate to allow its extension to physics. You have gone so far as to "warn" me against using this approach. But I am not sure your warning was followed with reason? If you have such an argument I would be glad to hear and discuss it with you please?

But I do understand and sympathize with you and others, for how foreign it must sound. Foreign can appear silly based on established preconceptions. I can place myself in your shoes quite easily in this respect. If you do choose to rate my essay, please do so on the basis of whether it is a well formed argument, rather than whether you find agreement with it. And I will judge your essay on the same basis.

If Baryons do derive their capacity for force and agency from the environment of space, then we can look at the structures and agencies of matter and ask the "what if question?". Do the structures and agencies of matter make a logical sense in terms of this prospective relationship? I think my essay demonstrates that there is such a prospective interpretation which flows quite easily, and it didnt feel forced as I developed it. Infact it felt more like a free flowing discover of prospective answers. Was I just kidding myself? possibly!

Now that I have constructed this elaborate house of cards, it should be easily tested on basis. Which foundation card can be pulled from the deck, that will topple my house? I have given three main aspects open to attack, 1. on the QM level, the observable measurable principle of force dilation" 2. on the cosmological level, the variable Baryon mass resolution for galaxy rotation velocities, a geometric and therefore mathematical argument 3. on the level of metaphysics, which explains the first two principles in terms of being an evolved universal system. Optimised for purpose.

Undermine one of these three, and the other two should be falsified. All reasonable falsifications are welcome.

I will read your essay soon and comment on your page. Thanks again for reading mine

Kind regards

Steve

Hi Jim

I recall your essay title from last year, so I must have liked it :). I havent read your essay yet but I will any day now. Ive been caught up moving house and also indulged a sailing adventure. But its nearly time I applied myself to the contest again.

I'm interested in anything that might relate too my ideas. Thanks for bringing Jeremy Englands work to my attention. I'll definitely follow up.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven

James

You honour me with an exceptional message. I am fascinated by circumstances of Darwinian evolution, and account of the following is certainly an interesting account.

"changes in how vein blood leaves the brain was responsible for helping australopithecine primates to stand erect, and lead to the evolution of homo sapiens."

Darwinian evolution is an explanation that is simultaneously subtle in detail, but powerful in consequence. That biology is plastic and reformable based on changing circumstances of environment and opportunity for survival. It presents a functional metaphysics for the existence, and the generation of life's complexity.

Your description of biological respiration based on atomic process, is also an exquisite account. It really does do a very fine job of bringing together consideration of physics process, as they apply to biological process. An exceptional account.

I had thought you were building up to the point that physics process could not possibly have Darwinian roots. I had interpreted your following statement as stating this much?

you said

"In other words .. simple atom changes cascade into prominent animal behavior changes. But without having Darwinian qualities at the atomic/chemical or metabolic levels."

But you go onto say

"Tell a physicist or chemist that certain atoms have 'lungs', and it is a sure ticket to be taken to an insane asylum. :-) But carefully identify process similarities, and maybe a light of acknowledgement goes on in their thoughts."

This gives me the impression your caution might be limited to the extend of, I should be careful not to offend physicists or chemist's fragile sensibilities? That I could be more careful to represent my principles as similarities of process only. I do take this point well, and have given it much thought. I have wanted my considerations and arguments to be entertained by others, but it has been a challenge to bring people past their initial preconceptions to then engage with the idea. Darwinian principles to explain the worlds physical complexity? People feel they can conclusively rule against this proposal without having acknowledge the arguments. Arguments I could do a fine job in defending, if only the tests were put to me! Without others engagement, I'm just arguing with myself ? But in answer to your concern, I do specifically refer to Darwinian principles as a remedy for universal complexities, and I must put physicists or chemist's fragile sensibilities aside to make the necessary arguments.

The premise of my theory is ultra simple. If space where filled with an energy potential that primitive Baryon fields came to exist within, then could the complex structures and agencies of the modern Baryonic universe be interpreted as an evolved state, that is optimized for the purpose of exploiting this energy potential?

You are a biologist and intimate with the principles of Darwinian process. Clearly you are also intimate with atomic and physics processes. It is within your capacity to test this idea, and or test the rationale which I have already formed. I have described a small portion of it in my essay.

Thank you for your message and I'm very much looking forward to reading your essay. If your messages have such thoughtful content then I presume your essay entry must be quite wonderful.

Kind regards

Steve

James

I have contributed the following to your page.

I have read your essay twice, and you receive a top rating from me. I believe it would be in your best interest to have more people read it, you might simply ask them too, and you will be rewarded with a good rating. I am sure. I think your first contest submission is bound to be a great success. And you will be on my "too read list" should you choose to enter again next year.

I will be recommending your essay to a friend of mine, James Putnam. And if you read his essay, you will appreciate why I do so. You identify the structure of language (written and mathematical expression) as having a significant influence on human thought and reasoning. That human thinking can be largely defined in terms of what era it belongs too, due to being imbedded within a data environment of influence specific of a time. Human thought being somewhat limited, bound within context of an era. You have done a wonderful job of expressing these and other considerations, which might be partly summarized as "the unavoidable human condition, we must account for ourselves, as humans in attempt of science". If our intellect is considered the instrument we attempt to measure and understand the world, then we best understand ourselves in terms of being the instrument of interpretation. To understand the world, we must also understand ourselves.

James Putnam realized that the units we apply in physics could all be derived from a common basis. That we could foundation our units of measure on only two "indefinable" units, which are "length and duration", which have no prior units of definition leading them. But then every other physical unit we apply in physics might be derived of these two indefinable units. All independent measures would then communicate with one another by common basis, because they are all defined in terms of length and duration. This would involve defining units of mass and temperature for example, in terms of length and duration. This might seem odd, but it is a very practical and achievable endeavour. It strikes me as a very similar idea that you have struck upon, relating continuum maths with statistical maths. That terms of GR might translate QM, to overcome an arbitrary limitation placed on our sciences by virtue of merely being two indifferently structured systems of measure.

My theory identifies force as being the principle mechanism at the base of all physical interactions and relations. GR is unified with QM by virtue of being redefined as "force dilation" instead of "time dilation". Force dilation is a property of clock springs, and clock springs are responsible for driving clocks. Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force.

Force is definable in terms of length and duration, which serves our new system preferred base units. Mass is empirically measured as inertial force, and gravitational acceleration/force. So mass is definable in terms of length and duration. Temperature is definable in terms of photon activity, and photon activity is definable in terms of C. C is a velocity which is defined in terms of length and duration. So again we can define temperature in terms of preferred base units of length and duration, from which all units of physics could be defined within common scheme.

You are a systems theorist, and you have identified the principle of "relation" that stands "between" the phenomena, as being perhaps the most immutable invariant fundamental. In practical terms, this means you wouldn't define a property like mass in terms of itself, but rather by the nature of its interactions with other phenomena in the world. The nature of a things, their interactions with the world are the most useful and fundamental method to define it. This is quality reasoning. My essay expresses a theory which points to many phenomena of the world, and defines their relations to one another in no loose or uncertain terms. That atomic forces are derived from space, for example. Then I extract a precise measure from that proposed relation, that atomic force/mass scales dependent on gravities square law, which demonstrates prospect of being a mathematical fit for observed galaxy rotation velocity. Then I embed these behaviours and relations of matter within a metaphysics, which extends a logic along lines of being an evolved state of being, toward the very particular complex character and agencies expressed by the physical world. I hope it gives a system theorist much to purchase various considerations upon.

So when I read your essay I relate these considerations strongly. It made for the most enjoyable read. Well done with your essay, and good luck for a favourable outcome. I will contribute positively.

I do hope we have occasion to discuss things further.

Kind regards

Steve

James

I have engage in many conversations with many people. Quite often we might begin on point of common interest or agreement, but the test is, how far a conversation might be carried before opinions diverge. All too soon, in most instances, but I have a sense ours will be different, remain coherent. You are definitely engaged in a pragmatic investigation, a functional effort to resolve the puzzles of nature.

I acknowledge your wonderful analogies. Analogies make use of the various relations between things, that convey abstract and sometimes deep meaning. I also noted within your essay, that the "relations between things" is something you had identified as perhaps being the "most invariant fundamental" upon which understanding of phenomena can be based. A thing can best be defined in terms of its interactions and associations with other things. This might be a uniquely effective realization. Maybe as a system theorist you practised this frame of mind, or maybe you became a systems theorist because you had a natural inclination towards recognising relations. Either way, I judge this trait serves you very well, within Universal puzzle solving inquiries.

It is also the case, you are well aware of the risks of "inherited presumption", ideas and or beliefs accepted as peer delivered truths, without an individual having rationalized the evidence for themselves. They build from the shoulders of great men, not realizing they need have built their understandings from having tested the foundations of those great men's ideas. If they don't know the challenges and limits inherent of those men's ideas, then they don't know the weaknesses of their own theories which are foundationed upon them. Your sharp focus on the data environment our minds are embedded within, make you well aware of these general influences. Your perspective mitigates the risk of "inherited presumption" which I think is a trait of worth which is difficult to over value. What if necessary realizations lay beyond a conventional no go theorem? It might be that energy conservation needs restructuring to progress science. So anybody not willing to put those puzzle pieces back in play, is excluding themselves from the prospective discovery this exercise might lead too.

While on the subject of energy conservation, I will mention. Atomic forces undertake "work" actions, atomic molecular bonds, for example. How can a "work" activity also be considered an "energy conserved system"? Doesn't that equate to conservation of work, a contradiction in terms?

By arbitrarily attaching the term "fundamental" to the description of "fundamental force", they have designated atomic forces as having no prior cause, being an original or first cause. The question of atomic forces delivering work products, might raise the question as to whether atomic forces might have a prior cause? Guv = Tuv is representative of the interaction between space and matter, specifically, Guv space curvature and Tuv equates value of atomic forces. Their equality certainly does not rule out the possibility of being a causal relationship, whereby space is giving up an energy content in exchange for atomic forces. And of course that is the basis of my hypothesis.

My focus on the inverse square law, which you referred too. I also consider this a reflection of an energy content and gradient density, as it seems do you. The forces that drive clocks are more energetic in deep space, because the energy density of space is more abundant. This is why clock cyclic counts increase their rate at distance from gravitating mass. The clock springs atomic forces are more energetic. Force drives clocks, clocks measure force.

A central theme of my work that will greatly simplify its interpretation. If Gluons and photons are accepted as being the same type of entity as one another, then it can be considered that there is only one type of force action within the Baryonic system which is arbitrated by it. Gluons Photons animate all baryonic actions and processes. A useful test of this concept is to ask, what does this concept suggest is the motivator of "gravitational acceleration?". James, Photons convert their force to motion C. Gluons are essentially light in form and function, so consider Gluons as potentially being able to convert force to motion. Gluons generate mass, and mass motivates gravitational acceleration. There is little more that need be said or questioned. But there is the question that remains, why do Gluons Photons direct their forceful agency toward building and maintaining elaborate structures and processes that can be termed, intricate and complex mechanical atomic devices and cosmological structures? That's where my evolved physical state plugs in. The space field provides the capacity for force, but it is the Gluon Photon which has evolved the mechanics to direct that force to motion. As fuel provides the energy potential, which the cars mechanical form converts and directs the forceful motion. A intricate and evolved system of energy potential, mechanical forms, and directed forces.

You have asked me.

"So conventional wisdom looks at "quantum before continuum". I know that I am exploring an alternative option .. "continuum before quantum", with a very specific model. And, if I interpret your descriptions accurately, to state that 'force is (somehow) more-fundamental' ... that that notion is also 'continuum first'. Would that be correct?"

I understand part of your reasoning is to unify mathematical languages, which stand as a conceptual wedge between quantum mechanics and Relativity theory. Quantum vs continuum. I have run out of time this minute to write, but I will answer briefly and return to this and other subjects later. I think the oceans surface serves a useful analogy. It is a continuum, however the waves which pass across its surface are defined quantum states, but without disrupting the concept of continuum. EM is like a mechanical fluid, which can be represented as a continuum, but also as the wavelengths that divide its length or surface. I guess my answer would be then, that the world is a continuum but made up of joined quantum parts.

Thank you for the message. I haven't acknowledged all of its content yet, but it is a riveting conversation I would like to continue.

Steve

James

Absolute. I have sent you an email. Look forward to talking further soon. Got a yard clean up underway today, so no time to write. But yes, there is a growing list of subjects which I'm sure we can make benefit of. I need to respond to more of your comments from last communicay, so anticipate that next. I know entropy is a topic you have studied intently. I suspect we will find common ground there also.

Steve

James

Each and every point and concept you have presented within your earlier message, could lead to an expanded conversation without bound. I sat down now to form reply, and limited to taking short hand notes I still filled two pages of text book. I feel like each and every point deserves my response, the reason partly being so that you understand I appreciate these considerations wholly. Writing communique might be limiting our conversation to a large extent, but as you pointed out, at least it has the benefit of making our conversation available to others, so they may better evaluate our reasonings and essay entry. But I do wonder what it might be like to sit down across a coffee table and accelerate our conversation. Perhaps one day. I'm in Australia if you happen by.

You refer to yours as an A-typcal approach. It is as a breath of fresh air to me. I think the simplest way to encapsulate relevance, is acknowledge another field which has benefited so thoroughly from these considerations. The need to understand ourselves, understanding language and environment of ideas we are embedder within, and how these influence our potentials, and also how these considerations play into how we conduct our investigative scientific inquiries. It is the developing sciences of criminal investigation which testify to the usefulness of your teachings. Modern criminal psychology and forensic investigation are essentially products of these ideas and methods. It is too broad a topic to do justice in a few words, but I can generalize. Physics inquirers should conduct themselves more as criminal detectives do, wary of the risks of inherited assumptions, importing unjustified stereotypes which lead to unjustified inferences. Physicists should treat the world as a detective treats a crime scene, for we are late to this scene and puzzling why pieces lay where they do. Newton and Einstein where detectives earlier on the scene, who have handed us their working case notes so that we may pick up their investigation. But we as detectives picking up their cold case, we would be amiss to base our new investigation souly off previous case conclusions, without looking at all the evidences afresh. Re-verifying every evidentiary aspect of the cold case. Retesting every conclusion without arbitrary bound.

Scientific institutions indoctrinate there would be detectives a scripted curriculum, and ask that they take up the investigation from these deliver assumptions. There are scolding terms that deter any would be investigator who strays from method, which only serves to alienate original concept. And the price science might pay for these methods serves as its own punishment.

Yes it takes time to get a feel for another's terminology. I as do you, struggle with word choices, agonise over them. But you have settled on good terms, and better than I. I don't use the term of "energy" barely at all. Its nebulous. I have identified that forces are a worthy central theme, and their actions and influences are not ambiguous. Referring to potentials is also useful, but not as useful as referring to actual actions.

Modelling thermodynamics. I agree with you that heat process is a secondary process, which emerges from a more primal system that is EM force. First we seek to understand what is EM?, and what motivates its function and characteristics? Then we consider why EM systems manifest the higher level characteristics that at heat processes.

Entropy, heat spreads out. Which was very nebulously associated as systems moving from orderly to disorderly states, in my opinion. Then somehow from here it is extrapolated to being an all pervasive universal principle from which nothing is exempt, entropies rule of the universe. But the world is made up of energetic compact bodies "atoms and planets" which the so called fundamental forces seem intent on maintaining their form. If entropy ruled why would the extraordinary sum of energy contained within matter, not break nuclear, elemental and gravitational bonds. Why would matter have condensed in the first instance if entropy ruled supreme? And if gravity and matters energetic bonds don't export disorder, then their actions towards order must be considered non-entropic. Where is the exported disorder? These forces build the entirety of the universes intricate structure, and despite they have not been redeemed as entropic, somehow entropy is considered to rule the universe.

Here is an interesting consideration to get you thinking in terms of cosmological relations.

Galaxies rotate as though their mass density is a constant from middle to edge. A disk of constant density. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy centre. This illustrates a beautiful symmetry which represents the deviation from GR predictions and what is observed. The Dark Matter, or MOND puzzle.

I stepped off the proverbial mountain about five-six years ago. It took a crisis in my life for which I needed distraction, that lead me down the physics and cosmological puzzle solving path. The crisis passed, but my puzzling remained a habit.

What drives processes? It is Gluon, Photon force that drives all Baryonic processes. Diversity of processes are simply a matter of the diverse structures and behaviours that Gluons, Photons are animate within. The structures and behavers are evolved and optimised for natural circumstance and purpose. What began as a natural energy potential, has cascaded as a circumstance of gradual and compounded physical changes, that shaped the character of the world we witness around us. There was only ever one type of organisational principle capable of generating complex intricate systems. People might have taken note of that clue before now, and considered how Darwinian processes might be incorporated as a solution for universal complexity. But in the same way the search for a primal motivator was diverted, by placing the term "fundamental" in front of "forces". The complexity of the world was also neglected as clue, that might hint at underlaying physical processes. I know, because nobody wants to talk to me about complexity, even while I don't inject my special brand of solution. Complexity dumbfounds everybody, except within biological reference.

We share the common approach of treating this quest for answers as a puzzle solving exercise. A picture puzzle serves as a nice analogy for what you and I both do, except that we tinker with the grandest puzzle. Science makes observation and measure which can no-doubt be largely relied upon, while remaining cautions of interpretations, I might add. And so we incorporate these identified pieces but then reconsider associations. We don't divorce ourselves from science in these efforts, as people confronted by unfamiliar ideas seam to assume before taking the time to consider a supporting argument. They are trapped within their taught and repeating models.

Near the end of your message you refer to "what is resident to the universe" "most primal". Within my model force is not primal to the universe. Forces are a capacity of matter which only came to exist but for their ability to exploit an energy potential of space, represented as Auv and corresponding to Dark Energy observations. Auv, a field with regenerative qualities. My theory makes use of this observation and measure, then associates Auv field as being the contributor that enables atomic forces. The question of what is primal to the universe that enables Auv to regenerate, is beyond me. This is where I would direct your deepest questions. And happily confront another impenetrable layer of mystery. We might have need for mystery in our lives.

At some point we might discuss the measures of Auv which support my hypothesis. It is not complex, and the measures are suggestive in the extreme.

Thanks again for enabling a wonderful conversation

Kind regards

Steve