Good to see you here Tom..

This essay looks very interesting and quite cogent, on first pass. More to say after a careful reading.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thomas,

Good to see you back.

Your title, "All life has a pulse" is symbolic and perhaps scalar. In simplistic, even sparse terms, you are metaphysically and theoretically profound: "In a living universe, what could be more fundamental than a simple harmonic oscillation? In a dead universe, what creature could experience it? Will the metaphysical questions never cease--and will we cease running away from them?" I'm gathering that the metaphysical questions only cease when there are no sentient creatures to pose them. My essay notes that these sentient creature must be present to determine the fundamental and utilize light to discover the fundamental ultimately and curiously combining the four forces to achieve the basic and fundamental knowledge.

Hope you get a chance to check out mine.

Jim Hoover

    Tom,

    You make a beautiful point, but I have to ask, doesn't +1 and -1 imply 0?

    Yes, "no space is empty of field," but doesn't that still mean space is foundational to field?

    Isn't space the modern equivalent of zero, in that math went a very long time before realizing it is a necessary concept, now physics seems to think space is just a byproduct of geometry, not its foundation?

      Dear Tom,

      It is a pleasure meeting you here in the Contest again.

      You wrote a very interesting Essay, despite it is a bit speculative.

      I did not know Einstein's definition of quantum as a singularity surrounded by a large vector field. Thanks for raising it.

      I find very intriguing your final statement that "In a living universe, what could be more fundamental than a simple harmonic oscillation?" It remembers me a famous statement of Sydney Coleman that that "The career of a young theoretical physicist consists of treating the harmonic oscillator in ever-increasing levels of abstraction".

      In any case, this is a very entertaining which deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.

      If you are interested to further interact with Einstein, you could read my Essay, where I discuss an approach to the fundamental issues in physics ... exactly with him!

      Good luck in the Contest.

      Cheers, Ch.

      Hi Christian,

      Actually, I have read your essay and loved it. Time is short for me now, but I expect to be free in a couple of weeks, and have time for thoughtful comment.

      This essay was abstracted from many pieces of my research into neutrino behavior, the most comprehensive being "Dynamic spacetime imposes a matter continuum." It is from that paper that I quoted Einstein:

      We conjecture that, having this potential for self-interaction, the beam can create two separable neutrino fields interacting harmonically with the superconducting field. This is a unified field--in the same way that the electrical and magnetic fields are unified in the electromagnetic field--through a simple harmonic oscillation. Suppose the resulting soliton is a quantum (quantum bit). This accounts for Einstein's definition: "One should not think that radiation consists of quanta that do not interact with each other; this would be impossible for an explanation of the interference phenomena. I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field. With a large number of quanta a vector field can be composed that differs little from the one we presume for radiation. I can imagine that when the radiation hits a boundary there occurs a separation of the quanta by processes at the boundary, say according to the phase of the resulting field at which the quanta reach the separating surface. The equations for the resulting field would differ little from those of the previous theory."*

      * Physikalische Zeitschrift Vol. 10. No. 22, pg. 817 (discussion section)

      So I appreciate very much the Sidney Coleman quote, which I was not aware of!

      Looking forward to productive dialogue. See you around the quad. :-)

      Best,

      Tom

        Dear Tom,

        Thanks for your kind reply and for clarifying the origin of your Einstein's citation. Can you insert a link on your research into neutrino behavior?

        Thanks also for reading my essay and loving it. I am honoured by this and I look forward to read your comment(s).

        Cheers, Ch.

        Thank you, Christian.

        Do you use ResearchGate? Link is in references. Secure link--must copy and paste. Look for title, "Dynamic spacetime imposes matter continuity."

        And besides, I am Emailing it to you. :-)

        Cheers,

        Tom

          Dear Thomas Howard Ray,

          FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

          Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

          All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

          Only the truth can set you free.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          Tom,

          I took me another read and some headwork to get the criteria of "Popper-falsified" fixed in my mind which is essential to grasping the algebraic argument, but then it comes together. There are a number of ways to go with it, and I've saved it on my reader for that purpose. I like especially the simultaneous approach of -S and +S toward s, as the fundamental real behavior of covariant physical length contraction, which would place s in motion with a corresponding amplitude of lateral (orthogonal) extension at half-time cycle to c.

          (Well, everybody comes looking for something that might expand their mind and maybe provide a citation to further their own grand designs.) Look what they've done to my song, Ma. Best wishes, my Friend. jrc

            Hi Tom, I feel uneasy about your "operational principle of correspondence" , your "What is real corresponds to what is possible in a reciprocal manner." For something to be real it has to have been, and be possible but possibility does not require the reality of the possible. To illustrate, here are two different scenarios

            1. there are 6 playing cards, one is selected. The un-selected, which were also possible choices are counterfactual. Equally real but not the selected result. 2. There is a vat holding six cups worth of water, as a single body of liquid. A cup of water is taken from the vat.There are not 5 more individual cups of water that are the counterfactual not drawn water, although there was the possibility of taking six cups worth out of the vat. The cup of water selected has only come into being at the act of taking the water. Which for this scenario makes real and possible very different from scenario 1.

            You write "we are forced to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable" At the time the result is obtained the possible has been reduced to the inevitable outcome but prior to that reduction in possible outcomes, (through decision of what states will be considered , the viewpoint, the apparatus and/or method applied), the possible exceeds the singular result. And as in the water scenario the possibilities need not be real, isolated results, awaiting selection. (An argument against local realism and counterfactual definiteness.)

            With respect, Georgina

              I think you might argue that as the water is just water there are not six possibilities but only one. So let say this is not distilled water but a non homogeneous mix of water, pond life, and pollution. Which will provide what is necessary for six different cups of water.

              Georgina

              Georgina,

              I think you read that too quickly, the criteria clearly stated as "Popper-falsified" is expressed in the proposition Theta - Lambda (note: capitals) = 0 . That is what you state in paragraph 3. When the essay lays out the reasons for criteria, the statement "we are forced to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable." is what a forgone conclusion would be without falsification by Popper's clarity. I had to wrestle with that myself, because it first seemed a contradiction to me too. It probably could be presented a little more clearly as a condition. I admit I've gotten accustomed to reading Tom and his acumen in math often is self apparent to him, but then could benefit from a little editorial direction when his prose gets ahead of his argument. Glad to see you got some community cred for your essay, jrc

              Hi John,

              I think I was showing that the possible (not falsified but equally likely as the realization) is not equal to the real. The equality I'm thinking about is a quantity. The possibilities, which could be itemized exceed the real.As there is no real cup of water until it is filled, and when filled it is one out of many possibilities.

              Tom says "we are led to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable, one of the cornerstones of quantum theory." If so the inevitable is equal to the possible,-but it isn't equal, unless the equality is not meant to represent equality of quantity. Instead saying something like 'the inevitable is identical to a possibility'. Which is correct but only one of many. John, I don't know what you mean by "without falsification by Popper's clarity" in regard to that quoted sentence.

              Popper quotes Einstein about a "real thing" or mathematical result (thereof). A real thing (Theta) minus a possibility (Lambda) equals zero (0), that is the stated proposition of reciprosity. You are adding your own criteria to someone elses structure of argument, then arguing against the limits of their argument. You are talking about what you want to talk about. As always. jrc

              John, Tom did not explain that:"Popper quotes Einstein about a "real thing" or mathematical result (thereof). A real thing (Theta) minus a possibility (Lambda) equals zero (0), that is the stated proposition of reciprosity." I did not realize the 'equation' in the essay was based on Popper quoting Einstein but thought it was Tom's own notion. That isn't clear. From what you have said, it seems to me, Tom assumes the reader would know that. Never mind if it was Einstein, Popper or Tom. Perhaps I have not understood it as it was intended. What does subtraction of a possibility from a real thing mean? And Why subtract? And how do you subtract it if the possibility isn't an actualized thing or state or value. The cup of water possibilities aren't distributed as individual outcomes in space but in an indistinct blend of states, only becoming definite and singular when the relation of container and water with contents come together in the scoop. Unlike the playing cards.) Or is it meant something like; when the result is obtained it is the same as the possibility of that result, which can then be dispensed with and nothing extra has been added to the universe? What was Einstein thinking?

              Hi James,

              I only meant to ask, when will scientists will get hip to metaphysical realism -- i.e., that which makes a metaphysical question tractable to Popper falsification, thus scientific.

              Your essay, you betcha.

              Tom

              Hello John,

              1. Doesn't (- 1) ( 1) = - 1?

              2. No. Spacetime is the foundational field.

              3. I have no idea what you mean, but I enjoy passing time with you. ?

              Tom

              Hey John,

              Popper falsification is simply this: theory is correspondent to result IFF theory is primary. IOW, theory always stands on its own, and result never stands on its own; result is never interpreted outside theory. A single negative experimental result can falsify a theory, though any number of positive experimental results cannot verify a theory. Let's see if we can express this in symbolic language: let TT' represent the two states of a theory, stand alone and stand with result, T0 and T'R; let RR' represent the two states of an associated result, unfalsified, R0, and R', falsified. Then the relation allows only one meaningful match, T'R' -- the rest do not contain enough information for a closed logical judgment.

              I think you've got a kinesthetic feel for relative motion. Now pair it with the relativistic rejection of simultaneity of events.

              Thanks for your confidence, John.

              Tom

              Actually, John, that ? was meant to be :-). System won't accept emoticons.