Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin by Steven Andresen

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 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 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

Here's a letter I wrote for Karen Crowther. I would like to share it with all of you too.

Dear Karen

You picked a good theme for this years essay, and you are accomplished in that you did the subject good justice. Congratulations of a great essay and a great score. I hit you with a 10 but it wasn't sufficient to move you up to 7.7. But it will have pushed it closer to that tipping point

I just want to give you a quick run down, why you might read my essay with a view to measuring it by your check list. I'll make this short but the essay, if you should read it, is more comprehensive.

You have identified the prospect that a Quantum Gravity Theory might present means of unifying Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. With this in mind, please consider the following approach?

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and two fundamental theories serviced by one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces (clock springs). GR might be surmised, a study of time (clock faces). But clock springs and clock faces are connected via shaft, from which you can deduce they are locked in proportional motion with each other. When you consider that clock springs drive the clocks function, and the clock hands but follow the springs instruction, (making clock hands superfluous in terms of being a physical cause or influence). Then when you consider how gravitational environments modulate a clocks rate of function, then have your minds eye look past the superfluous clock face, and instead look to what effect is imposed on clock springs. Quantify the springs parameters and you will see the term "force dilation" is justified.

QM is a study in the clocks back end function, where the forces reside and issue their cause. GR, gravitational environments impose effects on clocks, but consider the prospect of those effects being imposed foremost on clock springs. GR is translated as a consideration of QM force dilation. This is a unifying effort well worth following up on.

My essay then goes onto extend consideration of force dilation, within context that atomic activity/forces/work are derived from a field energy potential of space. Guv = Tuv representing the nature of the interaction between matter and space whereby space field is converted to atomic forces. Guv field providing Gluons with the capacity to generate force/mass, and Gluons then have the capacity to convert force to motion, "gravitational acceleration". That is a pretty simple and straightforward approach to QG theory that ties QM and GR together.

The Guv space field owes its origin to Auv, or Dark Energy. Which it is possible to interpret as a continually regenerating universal field. I go onto hypothesis that the Baryon universe might owe its existence to this Auv field, which serves as a natural energy potential Baryons have evolved structure and agency to best exploit. So we arrive at a junction whereby we are inquiring after Darwinian principles to question universal systems, order and process. That the universe might be an example of nature having been given a natural energy potential, it invented a circumstance of Darwinian emergence.

You place a large emphasis on the challenge faced by fundamental theory, in transcending the length scales. For example, what type of unified field theory might transcend and encapsulate all length scales? Consider biology and how it is serviced by theory which mitigates this issue. Biology is serviced by systems on various length scales, sub cellular, cellular and multicellular, and even societal. And all these systems being modular in building compound biological structure and complex organisms. The theory of Darwinian Evolution connects and translates all of these length scales within a common and seamless context. Darwinian Evolution applied to atomic field theory, would conceivably achieve the same result. Sub atomic, atomic, molecular, cosmological scales all bridged by common context of being an evolved system. Not only unifying the length scales, but conceivably providing the context for rationalizing universal order and complexity, of universal system structure and process.

I know this will all seam pretty far out there, but there are not many theory types which have prospect of qualifying your listed criteria for fundamental. This theory might be considered for review based on novelty, because logic can be applied to it and it does extend prospective answers to your criteria list. I think you might have some fun with it, and putting your essay rationale to the test.

Thank you for your consideration

Kind regards

Steve

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Peter

Thanks for following up on that discussion. I couldn't determine if you were recognising that which I referred too. But yes, you do. The transition of weight for the top end of the pole, as it is leaned over. You refer to as torque.

I am not familiar with how this consideration of torque relates to a spheres? That is something I will have to follow up with you. And it sounds as though Ulla has something interesting to contribute in this regard. I will follow up on this also.

So yes. A poles top end weight transition as it is leaned over in a gravitational field, creates the same curve as a Photons probability distribution (at the same respective angle). The question is, is this a meaningful observation? Does it tell us anything about the photons properties or behaviours?

The pole and the Earths gravitational field is representative of an interaction between two systems, which gives a variable value for weight (top end of pole). The same can be said for the Photon and the detector, they represent an interaction between two systems, which gives a variable value for Quantum probability. They are both values obtained from twin systems.

Let us focus on the nature of force interactions. We might use the example of the pole in Earths gravity to build a model for consideration. The simplest distillation of force interaction considerations is represented by (forces applied to bodies, and bodies resistance to forces applied) or (forceful influence, and resistance to forceful influence).

The poles weight transition is a consideration of the poles resistance to pull of Earths gravity at various angles. Simple!

Is it possible this is the nature of the relationship between a photon and detector, that gives variable quantum probability? The prospective origin of Bells Inequality. Photons possess force, and it makes sense this is coupled with the ability to resist forces applied toward changing its state, angle. And we know that the detector is applying force to the photon, because it does change the Photons state, angle.

If all force interactions do possess component of (force and resistance to force), and the photon and the detector are a force interaction, then the answer is (of course the photons angle can effect its ability to resist the forces acting to change its state, angle.

These are ultra-simple observations and conservative claims. And they do provide the prospective basis for decoding Bells Inequality. A pole in a gravitational field decodes a photons quantum probability. A simple geometry (pole) coupled with considerations of (forces applied and resistance to forces applied). To decode massive particles requires varied geometries (spheres) but the same force considerations apply as for the Photon.

Peter, in my view your work represents the needed geometric considerations. However could benefit for the force dynamics. Physical interactions are about geometries, but also the "force interactions". There can be no interaction without forces. Force interactions include the dynamic of "resistance" which does contribute a necessary component.

I'm glad I could say this for you. I wasn't sure we were on the same page the other day, so I didn't see the point in going further. The beauty is in how simply these considerations are retro fitted to your current body of work. It just clicks on. That is part of the reason I was so impressed by your work, and its prospective validity. But also allows you to begin your sequence of decoding geometries from a simpler basis geometry (poles), that then leads on to your higher level decoding efforts of massive particles (spheres). The simpler your starting position, the more fundamental your basis, the more justified and easy to interpret is your argument/theory.

Think about Incorporate force interaction dynamics into your hypothesis.

Steve

Hi Ulla

Thank you for dropping by my page and considering reading of my essay. I will certainly read yours.

Yes, the equality between Guv and Tuv is something interesting to reflect upon. Physical interactions are usually energy conversions, from one type to another. It is interesting to ask the question, which is cause and which follows as an effect? between Guv and Tuv.

I think Clocks are relevant in terms of the forces that drive their function. Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force. My essay explains the details

Talk soon

Steve