Dear Steven -- the best introduction I have read for a long time -- I love the tone and style and the way you make it feel so personal and you can feel the power of the forces of nature.

I see many common threads in your essay with some of the other high-ranking writers in this great competition of the FQXi community.

Your essay fills the mind with many new ideas and connections -- I have read a number of times the comments by the other people -- some are excellent like Edwin's and Peter Jackson's just to name a few of the obvious one's -- some not so like Álvarez's comments which are combative to say the least (and not generally helpful you should see the long long list of nit-picking "so-called mistakes" in my essay LOL) but you handle that with style and grace (well done).

As to your fab essay (I will not repeat previous comments which you have answered fully) I have a couple of comments

Does your model form a complete metaphysical system (on the surface that is what you are aiming for I feel) in regards to how the "metaphysical" and the "physical" are dealt with -- it comes across that the metaphysical is metaphorical and has a special status a part from the physical. It seems that the "cause" of metaphysics is "the nature of the "dual" aspects of how time is handled" that is evolution. As Edwin points out there is a strong surface resemblance in your essay to his idea that "what time we see on the clock face" is counting 'energy" while for you it is counting F vis "forces cause clocks to function"! you have spotted a deep connection between the face of the clock and the "the mechanism that drives the clock" as two different "conceptions" I think, that is, a very deep insight.It is not clearly expressed in physics texts enough that clocks in GM measure "duration' the difference between the start and the end of an "event". So an "event" can only reference another durations but only in restricted cases, so how events are connected is mysterious yet you conjecture they are connected to "forces qm and (classical)" which do have a strong concept of "events" eg the sum of all histories approach and or individual atom collision which we can mathematically determine "properties" of this one "event". So what is "time in general" is never dealt with explicitly in GR (only durations) or QM (only events). And it isn't even clear in our current theories if we can connect "different" durations as one whole to get a "holistic" picture of all durations (which we hope can be thought of as "time" since there is nothing else that functions on clocks apart from "duration" and forces=events) OR the totality of all "QM events" as one whole "concept" which could be equated with "time". You identify correctly this "paradox" clearly and precisely in your essay. Durations and events but what is "time" is just left hanging up in the air so to speak. Hence you make primary "cause" and avoid this "lack of specification of time itself". So is the cause of metaphysics beyond "durations" or "events" or is it due to "our inbuilt cognitive processes that are fine-tuned to the survival of the fittest in an ecosystem". It isn't clear "what your pan-evolution" environment is exactly. Mass is due to the Higgs field in QM not to "Gluon activity [which] is the primary giver of mass" while "mass is Tuv=Guv in GR)" as you point out. A new paper (see link) shows that Some black holes [can] erase your past or Einstein's equations allow a non-determinist future inside some black holes!

So is time itself (as a thing-in-itself) the cause of "cause" in your metaphysics. As John English (and many before him) have pointed out evolution (or life) is due to "microstate filling order of marcoscopic entities" or the driving force of life is thermodynamics. Can life be considered a "force" as in a metaphysical manifestation of the metaphorical "thing-in-itself", and is it not really this "metaphysical force" that has the twin aspects that you mention in your essay as pertaining to clocks. We have a built-in clock "how DNA mutates at a constant rate" maybe you can add that to your purely physical explanation of "all interactions" of a clock. It would strengthen your argument a lot and would explain "this constant tick tock of the change of life-forms" for the animate, which nicely divides the inanimate from the animate.

Secondly -- as pointed out it is Newton's law that is "wrong" in galaxies not GR, apart from that small technical mix-up, your point is that "life force" has cause that is "how we survive the progress of the universe from one tick to the next tock (so to speak), epistemological evolution says there is no "final predetermined goal to evolution" -- local affects are primary -- why do we have eyes that are perfectly adapted to the colour spectrum of the sun because the sun is the colour due to contingence". In full If you notice a fact about the world, you can put it in one of two categories: necessary or contingent. A necessary fact is one that has to be the case, whereas contingent facts could have been different. Contingency means the outcome was the result of events that might have occurred differently, whereas necessity means the outcome could only ever have gone one way.

So you can think of it as a sliding scale:

Necessary: must happen, cannot not happen

Contingent: could happen or not, possible

Impossible: cannot happen, could not have happened

Is the time on the face contingent or necessary for evolution. Ask the same question for the mechanism for the clock workings.

I feel this basic distinction isn't clearly delineated in the essay. Is the purely metaphysical thing-in-itself necessary or contingent in your schema it isn't obvious. What is necessary for clocks to "function" and what is contingent is not clear if we can make "life itself a clock". Clearly what is necessary is the "mechanism" and what is contingent is the time on the clock. Yes how can you reconcile that with the inverse of that for "life" what is necessary is thermodynamics what is contingent is the actual "life-form" itself. So doesn't that imply that TIME itself as a thing is contingent or are we inferring too much by making TIME necessary for the tick-tock of life's progress as a clock face. If you think of a DNA clock with face marks for each each life-form from the previous -- doesn't your theory -- suggest we are necessary, it strongly does. If you think along those lines -- life as a clock and its face shows the progress of evolution, what is the "mechanism" of the clock now and what is the "force" -- these are the best questions to think about. I have to say your essay is very deep and slightly perplexing as well.

I hope you find some food for thought on my initial reading of your essay. My [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3133]essay[/linl] is here if you have time please read. It is all about the "imaginary unit"

Like you I don't do low ratings. I only rate essays that set my mind a thinking. Since I cannot judge ones that don't make me think. And yours as done that a lot so I have rated it very highly. Yours Harri

    I could say the above more concisely as == you have the animate (with its own clock) looking at (i.e. measuring an) inanimate clock -- so which is the primary clock or whose tick-tock is fist? Since both seem to fit you critical criteria. Harri. Two clocks both functioning yet -- which is necessary and which is sufficient isn't clear. And what are the how's and why's for the primary cause of cause is that outside the in/animate divide so to speak?

    It is always what questions your ask? Is it not! Harri

    Mr. Silviu

    That you have understood the puzzle pieces as I have presented them, measured them in your mind and appreciated their prospective fit for each other. Thanks for letting me know that my efforts to explain have worked as intended.

    Within the next few days I will have read your essay and dropped by your thread for a chat.

    Thanks again

    Steve

    John

    Its really interesting what you have said here. How does force/energy relate to information? You refer to energetic systems such as galaxies, but also biological systems and also societal systems, socioeconomic, civil. They represent expression of energy, but then you make the distinction of the role of information. Do you mind if I refer to information as being code within this context?

    Society isnt a random expression of energy. It is coded within human nature (biology) to a large extent, but also coded within cultural terms, and economic and legal systems. Whats interesting is that Darwinism is a relevant subject in the emergence of each of these. They are systems of expressions of energy which are encoded with forms and functions.

    Physics and cosmology are systems energetic to an extreme, and they have extraordinary and exquisite forms and functions. Are those forms and functions coded? Its a pretty safe deduction that they are. Can intricate coded systems emerge in an instantaneous creation of chance? Or faced with attempt to explain this type of complex system, should we explore the possibility they emerged over time, compounded change within an accumulated coding system. If physics and cosmology are of such an emergent origin, then the coding is expressive within the atomic forces. The atomic forces dictate a form and function that can be interpreted within assumption that baryons have evolved to exploit an energy field of space. My essay represents but a brief example of the implicated possible interpretations. This idea is more interesting than I can easily convey.

    Thank you kindly for reading my essay

    Steve

    Hello Steven,

    Your essay is a delightful journey through a multitude of mental stimuli.

    I have presumed that your intention was to identify enough general and special conditions for your readers to draw their own conclusions regarding the multiplicity of appropriate opportunities to apply the descriptive term "Fundamental".

    I was a little amused by your use of the acronym TOE since Google will give you a basket full of definitions; but any 'well educated but non-specialist audience' will understand what you were making reference to.

    We are in agreement that 'The world and its processes are far more intricate and interdependent than can reasonably be expected of a chance creation.' The universe, and thus our world, operates on a few principles that are liberal enough to accommodate and correct deviations either side of optimal conditions. It is this self-correcting capacity that keeps the ball rolling.

    I would like to read more about the speculative claim that 'the universe's propensity for generating molecular structure' is 'purposeful'. Is this a reference to metaphysics or theism?

    I will likely read your essay over again after the essay contest is over.

    Thanks for the walk in space.

    Gary.

      Dear Christian

      Congratulations on your vocation. That is a nice badge to wear and well done for pursuing your dreams. So many people don't, or cant. So it really is great when somebody does, can.

      When I refer to Big Bang as metaphysics, it isn't to suggest implausible or plausible. I use reference to metaphysics in terms of the dictionary meaning "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.

      Metaphysics adds value to science with interpretation or attempted interpretation of relationships and associations. The only criticism I conveyed in my essay towards the big bang theory, is to acknowledge the limitations inherent of chance occurrences, that exist for a would be inquirer attempting to gain insight into that system or thing. Chance occurrence is a reason onto itself, that gives no clues or reasons beyond itself. I simply point out it is an undesirable circumstance for an inquirer.

      You refer to evidence of big bang theory. My hope is that I don't have to argue to undermine another theory to progress discussion of an alternative. My idea presents solutions which can be evaluated on their own merits. Its natural for people to dismiss without consideration that which contradicts their beliefs. So many wont be willing to investigate my proposal. But some will and I seek those out. FQXi offers a useful platform in this respect, and I am thankful to them and those participants here who rank essays based on quality of argument, rather than depending on personal belief.

      Yes, GR's dilation effects assigned as a modulation of QM force, in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. We are accustomed to visualizing the clock face as it reads variable rate of time, in different gravitational environments. But remove all clock components from mind, except the spring which issues force that drives the clock. It is the origin of cause within the clocks system. Visualize a spring floating in space. What properties and processes describe the springs character? It focuses attention on EM force, which the spring is essentially made of. So when there is a modulation effect measured in relative gravitational environments, you have to apply that consideration to the system that is before you. And that is a system of EM force. What is remarkable about this concept of "force dilation" is that its parameters are already fully mapped out. It is after all, physically attached to the clock hands which demonstrate dilation effect proportional to square of distance from mass. That simplifies considerations.

      You have asked me this question

      "But gravitational potential cannot be localized in GR based on Einstein's Equivalence Principle which has today a strong empiric evidence. How do you solve this issue?"

      Absolutely. You are asking me about inertial mass and gravitational mass. It is a favourite consideration of mine. It is obviously central to considerations, but it is also an in-depth topic. I am wondering if and how I can do your question justice in short answer. My theory points at Gluons as the issuer of force that manifests the property of mass. (no surprises there) The key issue however is that "mass is the motivator of gravitational acceleration". This is not a big leap to make, because Gluons are just like Photons, and photons have the capacity for motion. Gluons do too by means of the same mechanism. So in answer to your question, gravitational mass is gluon directed force as motion. Inertial mass is gluons in possession of a forceful internal state (inertial mass). To alter a bodies motion state (to accelerate it) you have to alter the gluons forceful internal state. It is gluon mass that issues resistance to a body being accelerated.

      Gluonic mass serves the function of both the properties of inertial mass and gravitational mass. That is why the equivalence principle centres on a common mechanism, the function of Gluons/mass. Gluons issue force as acceleration, and resistance to acceleration, because they evolved within a system for a purpose. They issue their force so as to motivate the building of cosmological structures, which are optimised for exploiting an energy potential, Auv field of space.

      Thank you for the questions and the details and the link for your material. I will have a read of your essay and drop by your page with comments. In the mean time please let me know if you have further questions?

      Thanks again

      Steve

      Gary

      Thank you. You're very kind.

      I did throw in the term "fundamental" a few times for good measure. But yes, I focuses less on the meaning of fundamental than I did on describing fundamental processes of the world.

      hahaha yes "TOE". That reference was there for those in the know.

      Yes, the worlds operations are complex and interrelated in a way that suggests more than chance occurrence is needed to explain for them. You do think clearly in this regard when you acknowledge "deviations either side of optimal conditions". The process which I explore as a prospective solution that might be termed "a natural organisational principle". It is metaphysics and not theism. Theists have made good use of the complexity argument, and might be considered as being their best argument. Science has had a tough time countering it. What I propose is that science take possession of this argument, and in the process leave Theism with "not much".

      Thank you for reading and commenting, and I'll drop by your essay for a read and comment soon.

      Steve

      Harri

      Thank you so much. I guess I do take my pursuit of understanding very personally. It is my passion that leads me this way.

      Yes. Edwin relating the process of time to considerations of energy, presents a parallel with my concept. He's not quite ready to relate this to a principle of variable mass, but I wonder if he is thinking about it.

      Yes Juan's comments didn't seem very reasonable. He reminds me of somebody else who occupies his time in that regard. It does seam of odd hobby to occupy so much of ones time with. How can somebody be motivated to read so much, and disagree with nearly the entirety of it!

      The Higgs field is only presented as an explanation for +1% mass.

      I'm glad you appreciate the connection I make between atomic force and times process, while making use of clocks. I think it serves as a good observation and argument. That the process thought to be time is better served as force dilation, which presents a rationale, a method for unifying QM and GR.

      I like that you make good use of the term "duration" in substitute for terms of "time". It is a term more befitting of the worlds physical processes.

      Yes, biology makes good use of internal timers. I do make good use of analogy, so you might find some of your references turning up in mine at some point. Cheers for the content.

      Terms of "necessary or contingent" do offer an interesting categorizing filter to pass my concept through. I'll spend some time thinking along these lines.

      I will drop by your essay for a read in the next few days.

      Thank you kindly for reading my essay and sharing your impressions.

      Kind regards

      Steve

      Ilgaitis

      Thank you kindly for reading and commenting on my essay.

      I appreciate what you say regarding the nature of different perspectives, from inside or from outside of a system. You make the case that QM and GR cannot be and needn't be unified because they are simply different points of view, and so not necessary that either of them be all inclusive of descriptions of the world.

      However, when we measure the parameters of QM we are pointing to matters process. And importantly "when we are measuring parameters of GR we are "again" pointing to matters process, clock behaviour. If we are always pointing to "matter's behaviour" in either study, then why do we believe relativity to be a study of the properties of space? locality is implicated which draws attention to space as being implicated. And it surely is. But that doesn't change the rationale that both theories QM and GR identify and measure properties and behaviours of matter, and that properties and behaviours of matter could, should be serviced with one theory. Clocks indicate how this might be done, and force dilation might be a good way to do it.

      There are a couple of issues with GR, and there are a range of very well-informed individuals within this essay contest that draw attention to them. I believe they are right, and there are superior ways to construct our theory of relativity. So that my clock is not slower than yours, while yours is slower than mine. Or something along those lines "quote from Edwin Klingman's essay"

      I will have a read of your essay and we will talk again.

      Thanks again

      Kind regards

      Steve

      Dear Steven,

      I left already on February 16 a post and as mentioned there I voted you UP(8).(see your thread on the date of 16-02)

      I was awaiting your comment and rating on my essay until now.(now I am on 19 ratings at 6.8)

      I hope that you can appreciate my contribution, that is not only trying to explain the HOW but also the WHY.

      good luck and best regards

      Wilhelmus de Wilde

      Dear Stephen Anderson, your essay is similar to a work of art. You write like Shakespeare. But I did not see a good effect from your visit to my page.I answer briefly on three points, as they are seen in New Cartesian Physics.

      1. The Sun thermonuclear reactions are intermediate reactions. There stands out energy of rotation of the solar system.

      2. The interaction no between space and matter, so as space is matter.

      3. The possibility of evolved optimization inherent in the structure of physical space

      I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

      Steven,

      You have summarized quite a few physics ideas at a high level, and renamed a few of them, but I was unable to come up with any kind of meaningful interpretation of what you were trying to convey with your concluding list of five Darwinian principles or influences. I think you are attempting some sort of anthropic-universe-by-evolution strategy. But beyond that, I'm not even sure. Your writing style is clear, though your use of centered paragraphs made them unexpectedly difficult to read.

      You asked me to rate your essay, but frankly I would strongly prefer not to do so because it would be a low rating. I therefore will rate your essay only if you ask me to do so in reply to this posting.

      Cheers,

      Terry

      Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

      Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

      Dear Jack

      Thank you. I'm glad my essay presented food for thought. Your having considered evolution as a possible explanation for universal order and complexity marks you as a person of interest to me. I am going to do what I can to have a look at your essay before ratings conclude. I am already committed to reading a number of essays before competition close, but whats one more :)

      Some helpful advice for you. Maybe dont go to peoples pages and request they read your essay. Thats what I did yesterday, I was a 7.4 and became a 6.6 before their bombing run had eased off. What a mistaka to makea! Oh well, the whole point is to have ones essay read. So all good

      Thank you once again

      Kind regards

      Steve

      Dear Steve, [from my essay-thread, in reply] thanks for dropping by and alerting me to your absorbing essay.

      The fuller story: "As high seas crashed about you, a black bottle smashed aboard. Seeing the now-revealed message, you transcribed it here as your opening paragraph: not realising that you had discovered the missing introduction to Moby Dick."

      Thus does your poetic bent go on to reveal your wide-ranging knowledge of important themes and buzzwords: inviting me to an exciting universe of discourse based on ideas, thoughts, poetry, etc. Alas, for me (an engineer), devoid of mathematics.

      It's this last aspect that I seek to address in my essay -- mixing my poor poetry with simple math --- prompting another alas: it's nowhere near as popular as yours.

      So please bring your poetry and your heavy-duty know-how to bear on my essay: for I will welcome such to trigger corrections and improvements. Hoping it will help to bring out the best in you, here's some background info.

      Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

      Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.

      So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism, true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.

      The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.

      NB: Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.

      PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic."

      Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,

      Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

      Dear Gordon

      Thats a lovely message to receive after yesterdays bruising. I'm going to bump your essay up the list of those to read :)

      Dont kid yourself, your writing style is fine and delightful. It is effective in flattery in any rate, and worked on me.

      You write on a subject I enjoy. It is a subject that tasks then mind heavily, and that might have more to do with peoples selective interests more than it does your writing style. Especially this end of the contest when we're all trying to read as many essays as possible. So much learning and brain cramming. It can be a little tiring.

      Thanks for your kind words and I look forward to talking again soon.

      Steve