Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin by Steven Andresen

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

You understand me James! Thank heavens somebody finally does. If you were standing before me I would surely pin a medal to you :) This is my third attempt at expressing these ideas, and although each attempt achieved levels of interest, you are the first to step forward and declare comprehension, and appreciate it as potentially being more that artistful fantasy. But the prior descriptions I fashioned were pretty rough, so the fault was definitely mine.

Your complement is a great one, perhaps the most meaningful one I will receive. And I reflect it back to you, for I could not experience this conversation but for somebody comprehending. It is good to have met you.

I really appreciated your personal accounts. Learning of your mother Lillian Rose and father Milton Rose, and the lessons they passed to you, and their associations with Dr Einstein in academia and social. Quite remarkable. Is it possible an influence, a mindset fashioned by Dr Einstein and passed to your parents, was instructed too and survives in you? A mode of mind that is broad, that you might recognize potentials within unfamiliar ideas? That would be a remarkable circumstance if it were so.

If being a general systems thinker identifies me as your kin, then I'm honored to be such. I do think it maybe the appropriate fit.

Yes, what business do we have meddling in affairs outside of our training. Funny how things work out. Yes it might be that we are well suited as collaborators. If what I have uncovered happens to be correct, which of course I'm inclined to think so, but allow me to fain circumspect, then now that you know of it you might actually be better at it than me. I can hope, so that I might delegate all the hard work :)

Yes eurika moments are something arnt they. I think I danced to a few. I look forward to sharing some new ones with you.

I appreciate the informal less serious banter. Its not all about science, or science fiction as it might turn out.

I'm taking a couple of days away to surf and camp. But I will tune in on whatever is posted, and I will return to more of what you last shared with me soon. In the mean time I hope you reach out to people, to gather more exposure for your essay. It will be good to see it receive the rating it deserves.

Steve

James

I'm back from surfing! For now ?

I've been chuckling for last few days. Re- your joke, "we look to each other to do the heavy lifting" haha lol. I do like your sense of humour.

I didn't know about John Cowley until a few days ago. I'm amazed to learn about him and his achievements. I had heard murmurings we had a physicist in the extended family, but for some reason I didn't chase up the details of him and his work. I couldn't have anticipated what I might have found. Revelation to know it now.

James, I understand your method of inquiry, and how you seek to deduce knowledge about the quantum systems which serve your subject matter. You imagine you are collecting statistical information from a machine, but you don't know the type or nature of the machine. A pachinko game machine for example, which we might imagine as being behind a screen so we cant view it, which serves as place holder for a quantum system. You form questions based on whether they would be effective in teasing out useful information about the pachinko game machine. Then you turn those questions toward the quantum system. This is a fine approach you must be commended on. You are as you say, "a systems theorist".

As you know, the current method of analysing quantum systems isn't an ideal. It collects data on the interactions between two physical objects, but not having modelled the individual physical objects. They are as the pachinko game machines held behind screens.

If a genie were to grant you three wishes, I suspect your first wish might be spent learning the model for the individual atomic systems. Am I right? So you could build a model based on first principles, beginning with characterisation of the individual objects, that would quite naturally extend to the interactive nature of the two objects, that would deliver quantum probability experimental results. It would be nice if this could be achieved with no shoehorning elements of the model, forcing or contriving fudge factors. And having successfully modelled quantum probability from first principles, ideally it would de-code Bells Inequality, and provide resolution for the entanglement puzzle.

How does all this sound to you so far? Does this encapsulate what your efforts would deliver in an ideal world? Or do you have slightly different series of expectations?

Steve

Juan

To give you fair warning. My reply reflects your combative demeaner

Your comments and counter arguments are representative of your personal opinion, and do not carry the weight of scientific consensus or even general community opinion, which it seams by your tone, this is what you would have us believe.

I am going to take the time to counter this series of comments, however don't form a series of new ones please. You and I are remote of opinion, and I don't see that effort to close the gap as likely to succeed anything.

You state

"The whole of universe is made of particles, not "mater fields of force"

The Gluon field and EM field are matter fields. They are also force fields, or force carrier fields. There is wave particle duality, which gives an interpretation inclusive of particle behaviour, but it is in association with waves or field theory. Not exclusive of it. It is not a scientific consensus that only particles are real and that fields are not. What you are doing here, is speaking with authority towards your own opinion, which excludes existence of electromagnatism.

You state

"How and why are routiney questions asked in science, and it is task of science (not of metaphysics) to provide objective answers to such questions.

Big Bang is a physical theory; there is nothing metaphysical on it."

You seek to distance yourself and conventional science and theory from being or being associated with (metaphysics). I guess then, that you and science have no use for any of these.......

wiki

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to one another.

I said

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are currently our frontier fundamental understandings of the world.

you countered

"What happened to the known extensions of Quantum Mechanics and General relativity?"

I spoke towards and acknowledged limits of our theoretical understanding, and I take your comment as an objection. But in effect all you did was point to what is known, as if that somehow excuses or counters the subject of what is unknown. You might be pretending that unknowns are unimportant or don't exist.

You say

"Our current scientific theories are satisfactory in identifying causes and effects for thousands of thousands of processes that happen in real world. Moreover, neither general relativity identifies time as cause, nor Quantum mechanics does for "forces". It is more, one can build quantum mechanical models without even mention forces at all."

Again you point to the processes that are believed to be understood, as if that denies importance or relevance of the conversation for what is not understood of these and other processes. Then you suggest that GR doesn't identify time as being a cause, but general relativity is the theory of spacetime. You're arguing with me that a fundamental theory whereby the principle ingredient isn't associated with cause? But you cant back this up with explanation, because that would entail telling me fundamentals of spacetimes operation, which clearly you cant. You also suggest that quantum mechanical models can be built without even mention of forces at all. I would judge such a theory about as useful as toilet without toilet paper. (What type of interaction could ever occur in the world that was something other than a forceful interaction?) How does something interact with another something, without issuing of forceful influence. A large part of the predictability of quantum mechanics is due to the principle of equal and opposite reaction. Equal and opposite reaction of forceful interactions. How might you get your bum cleaned in the absence of interactive forces! Have fun testing that theory.

You say

"Precisely time is one of the reasons why QM and GR are incompatible. Time is QM is a parameter that describes the implicit time evolution of states and observables. Time is a dimension in GR. Clocks in quantum mechanics cannot be quantum mechanical systems, if they were quantum then a proper definition of evolution time would be impossible; it is the same reason why time in QM is a parameter, not an observable with associated Hermitian operator. Also QM is not the study of matter but the study of (quantum) motion and GR cannot be 're-framed' as the study of QM matter, because GR is a classical theory."

What you are basically doing here is telling me that conventional theory, or your interpretation of it, cannot be re-framed. You back this up with interpretations and arguments, one of which is "QM is not the study of matter". I think it a basic deduction that it is, and don't feel a need to argue these points.

I said

If force drives clocks, then do clocks serve as a measure of force? Surely this logic is self-evident.

You countered

"Not only this is not self-evident, but it is incorrect. Clocks measure a scalar. Forces are given by vectors, so we cannot measure the latter from the former. At best we can obtain the magnitude of a force from reading a clock."

What you have failed to understand is, the front of the clock measures a scaler quantity, parameter of time. That is to say "physical quantity that only has magnitude and no other characteristics". But the front of the clock is but a puppet dictated to by the spring, and the spring does so dynamically and quantifiably in terms of expressions of force. You want some vector?

Please answer this question in terms that sound scientific? The answer must include forces, because forces drive clocks!

Forces drive clocks, clocks measure time. How do clocks measure time?

I said

to a larger value of expressions of force, defined as newtons, force summed by travel/distance.

To which you countered

"This is confounding a physical property with an unit of measurement. Also the proper unit is "newton" (without plural). And what unit is "travel"?

Quantifying a physical property in terms of units is not confounding! And thanks for the gramma lesson. I do wonder if I could have lived without it. Travel is equivalent to distance, and it emphasises that a clock springs capacity for force corresponds to an unwinding or "travel span", a distance. Its not promising that I have to explain such things. I judge that you are just generally disagreeable and it doesn't really serve a purpose to answer such questions.

You said

"Dark matter doesn't exist. It is the modern relativistic reincarnation of the old Vulcan planet invented by astronomers to explain discrepancies between Newtonian theory and observations. MOND is correct, but only has limited empirical validity."

Here we have another of your personal opinions which you cast off with the customary authority.

you state

"There is no definition of what concept of relativistic force is being used here; moreover, time dilation in GR is a consequence of gravitational potentials, but those gravitational potentials don't generate gravitational forces (gravitational-guided motion in GR is "free"). All of this and the remarks above simply state there is not such principle of nature named "force dilation"."

I did point to the springs of two clocks that had spent time apart from each other within diverse gravitational environments, subjected to time dilation effects. Bringing together for comparative we do observe that their measures of time had diverged. We pealed the faces from both clocks and observe that the springs positions had also diverged, and we quantified the springs divergence in terms of expressions of force/newton(s). So in summary, "we took an observable, quantified it in terms of parameter and measure, labelled it with a term "force dilation" so that from then on after we might have some simple reference term. But of course, you disagree, because that's what you will do even in the face of observation, measure. That is your superpower.

You argue that

"Force Dilation = Variable Mass". Introducing a concept of variable mass here has the same validity (i.e., none) than the older concept of speed-variable mass introduced in the early years of special relativity. The author doesn't give any relevant detail of his 'model', but it seems likely that the same physical effect is being counted twice here: one as time variable and another as mass variable."

I did attempt to draw a line between the dots for you. I pointed to observations and measures, then delivered an argument for the principle I termed "force dilation". I argued that force dilation applies to Gluon activity, and Gluons give mass. I then ask the reader to consider variable mass based on variable Gluon activity/force. Then I suggested to the reader that if we move on from circumstantial justifications, and just apply the principle to see what happens. Does it deliver anything of prospective use? As it turns out, all we have to do is suppose that Baryon mass scales dependent upon gravities square law proximity to matter, and the newly supposed distributions of mass fall in line, as if to predict galaxy rotation velocities. Geometric arguments being mathematical arguments serving as evidence. But of course none of this counts as valid, because you relate it to some old theory. Delivering a devastating blow!

You say

"The five 'Darwinian' principles aren't principles at all, but only vague descriptions of phenomena is not fundamental as "trees reaching out to gather sun's rays." In fact it is not true that "structures spread out across area and volume of space". There are structures that reduce its size, because the optimal (equilibrium) state is one of smaller size; a gas into a volume higher than correspond to its temperature, will evolve spontaneously towards a smaller volume final state, when piston is released."

Again you are generally argumentative and arguing nul points. I referred to the five principles as being "basic Darwinian principles". And you argue with me on the basis of whether of not they are principles in any respect. When infact "A principle is a concept or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation." And my use of the term principle is certainly encapsulated by that.

I judge you will rate my essay as poorly as is within your power, so please go ahead and issue it. I expect you will have issued a splattering of 1's about the place already, and I would feel left out if I wasn't to receive mine.

You may rate my essay poorly with impunity, because I dont issue poor ratings myself. I either rate highly or I dont rate at all

Dear Laurence

Thank you kindly for reading my essay and asking questions about it. I will respond to you very soon, and I have your essay printed off for reading.

I look forward to discussing further with you very soon

Steve

Dear Wilhelmus

I recall speaking with you last year :)

Thank you kindly for reading my essay. I will respond to you very soon, and I have your essay printed off for reading.

I look forward to discussing further with you very soon

Steve

Mr Silviu

Thanks for turning up on my page. Yes I did laugh, and I'm told that is the symptom of humor :-) A man with sense of humor, so I look forward to reading your essay all the more.

Steve