Dear Silviu,

Thank you for the insightful, yet simple and beautiful trip! Here is what I take from it. You start from uncontroversial and mundane facts of life, in the search of a fundamental cause. And by simple inferences, you arrive at the conclusion that each event is caused by multiple causes, this leading to a relativity and an incompleteness. By varying one of the causes the result can change dramatically. I think this implicit definition of causation by instability to variations is insightful and captures its essence. And you pointed out rightfully that there are usually more parameters that one can vary and get an unstable dependency on the initial conditions. As a parenthesis, I want to add here that in the discussions about free-will (which you left outside for good reasons, but I just want to apply the idea to this subject since it seems to be of interest for many), the idea is simplified as if free-will should be something that depends on the individual alone, but since there are both internal and external causes, I think a better definition of free-will should include in a more relevant way both the being and the environment, but this of course will lead to something different than what our intuition says. Now back to your essay, as you said, this instability under the variation of multiple causes leads us to the following choice: either quit using the term with reference to a single cause as fundamental, or embrace more than one, and ultimately all of them, as being fundamental (in which case what is "fundamental" if everything is?). Our usual habit to identify a single cause makes us overlook other aspects, and even have completely different views. Who's right, or are we all, what is fundamental being relative in this sense, or it is just incomplete to consider a single cause? Also, I like how you apply the same reasoning to cosmology, in a simple, straightforward way. I realized that at a second reading I find more in your brief essay, so surely there is more to say about you wrote than what I saw. Well done, this little gem deserves more attention! Success in the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Dear Corciovei Silviu, you said briefly and clearly. Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental? My essay is among those who respond, which is fundamental. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, is the foundation for fundamental theories. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which is end of some questions.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

    Greetings Mr. Boris

    I appreciate your effort to read the essay, but i don't believe that i fully understand your question "Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental?" what do you mean by that? because what i wrote here is quite simple and therefor it cannot have the attribute of "the first...", but i suppose that you didn't want to say that, that's why i say that i do not fully understand what you wanna ask.

    Otherwise i am quite new in this field of scientists and i try to learn the convention between them, with the intention to become one, if it suits me. with that said the next misunderstanding will be on "rating an essay". you said "I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea" and i am truly honored by your words but have you rate it already? or should i be the first(among us) who rates and after that i will get rated as well?

    As you can see, i am a little confused so please don't take my words as malicious or hostile but as an effort to get out of this confusion. In each case i will read and rate your piece of work.

    Greetings Mr.corciovei silviu

    I read a lot of essays. Some say that such a fundamental, and others, which is the foundation for the fundamental. Your essay is short, but capacious among the first. "fundamental" becomesmore of an idea, a point of view, a perspective, and this perspective will not befundamental in the search of "what is fundamental". Of the second, I think the best is my essay, in which physical space is called the foundation for fundamental theories. The space contains information about changing the world.

    You have responded to my invitation to get acquainted with neokartezianskoy physics, i.e. at least in your memory this name remains, for this and for your essay I put you 10

    If the believer ask, where is God? He will answer - in heaven. Matter is space, and space is the body of God. The infinite space, which according to Descartes is matter, becomes common to matter and spirit.

    I wish you success! Boris

    Dear Silviu,

    Below are some thoughts I had when reading your essay:

    1. It was at times difficult for me to parse the meaning of your sentences, probably because English is not your native language. However, I laud your effort.

    2. The way you go about addressing the contest question is by starting with an axiom "every living needs an environment to exist" which is obviously very biocentric. The axiom seems to become inapplicable when there is no life, such as billions of years ago (probably), but since the universe was still around, the limitations of the axiom become at once obvious. Why not just say that everything that physically exists needs a location to exist in? This is more general, and it will also bring you toward special relativity because there are objects, namely those associated with lightspeed motion, which are not associated with any definite location.

    3. You then seem to bring in physics as a conception in the human mind. Again, that seems like a very anthropocentric approach which can't seem to work at times before humans existed.

    4. I did not follow the connection you drew between putting energy into a system and increasing the distance of the universe. Frankly, I think you will need a good deal more in the form of evidence and argument to make a believable case.

    I have the impression that you are just starting your journey in physics, if so, please continue your studies while you work on your ideas, you will find that as you learn more, you also learn to think differently, and possibly more flexibly, about your ideas.

    Best of luck,

    Armin Nikkhah Shirazi

      In general, the adaptation of a "living being" to the environment is not a result of the intelligence of that "being", but of the several physical, chemical, and biological interactions.

      The distinction between mathematical language and "verbal language" is not one of "causing a pleasant adaptation" vs not; the distinction is on precision, rigor,... and other properties that differentiate a formal language from a natural language.

      There is no problem with having two "essential aspects" in the same formal system. Fundamental is not a synonym for "one". We can have two, six, or more postulates in a formal system and the term fundamental doesn't "becomes invalid".

      "This put the human in a sensitive situation of observing a phenomenon in nature, trying to translate it in verbal values and then equate these

      values with others from the language of physics". This is not how scientists work. When observing a phenomenon the rules of the scientific method are applied and the phenomenon recorded and described in a formal language ready for analysis and communication with other scientists.

      "Observing the universe, the neutral human intelligence described it in terms of

      physical laws. He conceived symbols for describing the universe and used them to adapt and live better". This sounds as an utilitarian vision of science. Applied science can be used to live better, but the main goal of fundamental science is just to create knowledge.

      I don't have any reason to think that the energy of the universe is not a constant.

      The solution to the final question is neither 1 nor 2, but 3: maintaining the concept of fundamental as it is used today.

        Thank you for everything! and especially for the great advices! So let me, please, put it into different words so that I start my lateral thinking as you suggested:

        1. First you react like a shy teacher who wants to tell (with nice words) a student, that he's effort is appreciated but the essence of the effort is not so appreciated. Or like a Zen master with a dummy student. Personally I prefer the second one, it has a little bit of learning in it (for me).

        2. next you say that it is obvious that I start from a "biocentric" point of view, but the question will be "why do you need to point it out if it's obvious?" the irrelevance rises once we ask "who is trying to ask for what is fundamental?" At this point may I remind the we are in a real contest with real biologic beings trying to ask and respond to a question. Then you add that before any form of life the axiom would be inapplicable, which again points at some obvious fact that seem to be irrelevant, because at that time we wouldn't be participating in this contest. So this real contest exists only from a biologic perspective. Not to say that you almost build a certainty upon a probability "inapplicable when there is no life, such as billions of years ago (probably)"). then you say "Why not just say that everything that physically exists needs a location to exist in?" which is beautifully said and I fully embrace it (more to say is that you gave me some good insights with this more general and apriori approach).But your point at something analogus with moveing in to a new flat and after a year you decide to write down the history of the apartment from the first brick until the present moment (well, not exactly "the present moment"). Would you or would you not include you in the history?

        3."You then seem to bring in physics as a conception in the human mind. Again, that seems like a very anthropocentric approach which can't seem to work at times before humans existed". That, because "Physics" as a concept is an anthropocentric approach, obvious, right? What lies inside this concept should not be dependent of humans, or at least that's what we all want, I suppose. But let me ask what the purpose of a non- anthropocentric approach is? Because the purpose of this contest is to answer a human question, and I tried that from a human perspective (not very well done as far as I can see). When you say "Again, that seems like a very anthropocentric approach..." are you aware of the fact that the terms that you propose like being at least similar are opposing each other in some other frame of reference?

        Then in the end you already have impressions of me, as a person, presuming a starting journey in physics, and you already give me advices (again like a Zen teacher :) ), which as you can see I do my best to follow them (maybe some other certainty based upon a probability/uncertainty?) . Very nice of you but you're on the wrong track (as far as know about myself). Although if you presumed that I am a novice in physics you are absolute right, but as far as I know I am at a contest called "what is fundamental", and not "what is fundamental in physics".

        "...if so, please continue your studies while you work on your ideas, you will find that as you learn more, you also learn to think differently, and possibly more flexibly, about your ideas" so do you think that thinking differently and more flexibly is a emergent phenomenon from 1. learning more diving in deeply into the fundamentality of the field; or 2. learn more than one field of interest?

        . I hope to have spoken on your meaning this time, if not I declare myself incapable of a genuine expression of what is obvious (and I do tend to behave in this sense sometimes)

        Anyhow I do respect your work in terms of the same reasoning that wrote this message and I evaluated with an 8. If you consider it an offense I sincerely apologies (I could be wrong) but I am just learning, as you already guessed.

        Respectfully, Silviu

        Ma friend,

        Out of which planet are you? You seem to have read parts of the essay, but you didn't paid enough attention (because of the surrounding noise) therefore misunderstandings "got in" and it created a state of mind that states: "it is my misunderstanding or is he wrong?" let's suppose you randomly chose "he is wrong". Then your intelligence comes into the game and creates some argumentation for "why he is wrong" but in essence you are just confirming the essay with other words ( but did you understood it?)

        Maybe I am right (in interpretation) or maybe I am not (most probably, if not certainly, i am wrong), but the fact is that in either way the essence is the same: you say that i am wrong by confirming me

        In the end you are totally right and I was wrong (by omitting the third option): there are 3 choices and you may choose one and only one of them (the good thing is that you can recall it any time)

        P.S. a hint: biological=bio+logic.

        Thank for reading my essay

        I think that genetic evolution (in long time) and intelligence (in short time) permit an optimal adaption in the real world: it is possible that part of our reasoning is innate, so that genetic modify our reasoning, in the deeper levels.

        It is a good essay, but the answer is missing for me, changing the question to a too particular case: I think that there was the possibility, and the ability, for a deeper answer.

        I have decided to give only high votes, so that I don't downgrade your essay with a low vote that you do not deserve.

        Regards

        Domenico

        you say it'a good essay which gives you no answer, but why do you say it's a good essay, then? what makes it good for you.

        however, I did proposed a solution which is a choice, an individual one. if I would have given you "an answer" in the essay it would be "change you're way of thinking, and accept different perspectives like being one (which is a big change in the way we think now) I can't even do it for myself constantly, so how can I say that "this is the answer!"? it will be stupid (and I am stupid right now as you can see:)) ).

        More than that, it's not that I have the true answer of something, it's just an interpretation of a question which is "what is fundamental" and "a relative answer" (if you like it that way) would be a binary choice between:

        1. keeping the same way of thinking about fundamental which is "one essential thing"

        2. seeing that "one essential thing" as we see an electron (if you permit me a analogy) as wave and particle in the same time

        Strangely i have the impression (maybe a wrong one) that you cannot not understand what I wrote in the essay, due to what i have read in your essay.

        Thank you for reading.

        Respectfully, Silviu

          Or you may regard it as a pre-answer

          Man 1: What is fundamental?

          Man 2: Before answering, we should know that "Fundamental" could become nonessential for itself

          Dear Prof corciovei silviu

          Wonderful analysis..."Let's suppose we play a game, named "What is fundamental?" and its main rule is to answer the question. The competitors who find the proper answer are going to win. Who is the most clear win the most" Nice hacking....

          I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

          By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

          Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

          -No Isotropy

          -No Homogeneity

          -No Space-time continuum

          -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

          -No singularities

          -No collisions between bodies

          -No blackholes

          -No warm holes

          -No Bigbang

          -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

          -Non-empty Universe

          -No imaginary or negative time axis

          -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

          -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

          -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

          -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

          -No many mini Bigbangs

          -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

          -No Dark energy

          -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

          -No Multi-verses

          Here:

          -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

          -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

          -All bodies dynamically moving

          -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

          -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

          -Single Universe no baby universes

          -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

          -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

          -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

          -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

          -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

          -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

          -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

          -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

          - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

          I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

          Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

          In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

          I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

          Best

          =snp

            Excuse me, I did not answer, not checking all my comments in the various blogs.

            It is a good essay because it is well written (it reminded me Conrad), and the first part make a good analysis of languages, and reading I thought of different conclusions, linked to the representation of reality in the human brain.

            The baseball-Universe dynamics seem a particular case of fundamental dynamics (restricted to the final state), that does not give - maybe just to me - an answer.

            Your vote is high, so that others have thought otherwise, so do not worry about my opinion that is a minority.

            Regards

            Domenico

            Very Nice Essay corciovei silviu,

            I gave you 10, previously it was 6.5 now it is 7.2

            best wishes

            =snp

            Dear Silviu:

            You are a gifted writer.

            Even though my essay writing is not as good as yours; I believe I have presented some substance.

            In fact, I think your essay should be read first, before people read mine. Then they will better appreciate why the concept "Fundamental" for the human species must keep evolving.

            May be we could collaborate. Then you do not have to hack my brain without my knowing: Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

            Chandra.

            Silviu,

            Great game, and excellent way to look at the issue. Well done.

            My essay title 'Ridiculous Simplicity' suggests a solution which is ...simply;

            "Nothing can exist without motion".

            I show that has rich universal meaning across all physics at all scales. Motion is a relative concept. I't motion that 'creates' fermion pairs from the vacuum, and it's rotational motion that IS all matter, or with ever more complex coupling of rotations. Then just add relative 'linear' translation and we can make an entire universe.

            "what is fundamental for the final state of the universe?" Re-ionization in the greatest rotation that exists. At smaller scales 'Supermassive black holes' (AGN's) do the same but to a galaxy) The ejected matter forms the next universe in the cycle! Full (well evidenced!) picture here; https://www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS

            Relative motion 'IS' 'Relativity' - but rationalised (see prev finalist essays from 2011) and mine this year shows it also provides, shockingly, a classical derivation of QM!

            I hope you can read and enjoy it. It's the future (In 2010 I suggested it may be 2020 but perhaps optimistically?)

            very best

            Peter

              MR. SNP Gupta,

              Thank you for the nice and overwhelming words, but they make me smile as I am far for being a "Prof." If you would like a social appellative, then i could say about myself that I gained the title of "rock climbing national champion" a high one. I hope you do have the sense of humor, as humor is a universal language

              Dear Corciovei

              I was glad that there are people interested in hacking the human brain. The consistency/complexity of the human brain is a reason that consciousness can make use of it (can reside in). So I am not saying that the complexity is the CAUSE of consciousness, no because that would be the same as "looking for the announcer inside the radio". What I myself try to do is hack consciousness...

              Some remarks:

              "the environment provides clues to survival and to existence". The human agency is part of the emergent phenomenon called "reality". Reality is the total environment of the agent, including emerging space and time. "Survival" is a consequence of the emergent time phenomenon. Each "living creature" is eating other living creatures.

              "We notice that the intelligence has the propriety to be aware of itself, " I think that this is a not yet proved assumption. Artificial intelligence is not yet "aware" (conscious) because it is just working with algorithms. Maybe when quantum devices are being used for creating "intelligence" then ARTIFICIAL CONSCIOUSNESS may arise.

              Language: mathematical and verbal. Communication is a process that involves time, Communication is also one of the tools to survive in time. Maybe there are more "languages" possible to communicate...

              "With the discovery of some few immutable laws of the universe, the human being found more "essential conditions". I think that humanity at each discovery of a so-called "immutable" law, find new essential conditions that are only valid for a new short time.

              I wonder what you are thinking of my attribution "Foundational Quantum Reality Loops" where I am not only trying to try to reach out to the foundational HOW but also to the WHY. So maybe you can spare some time to read, comment and eventually rate it.

              Best regards

              Wilhelmus de Wilde

              Mr. de Wilde,

              Thank you for your time.

              Regarding your four remarks:

              1. I totally agree with your words "..."Survival" is a consequence of the emergent time phenomenon. Each "living creature" is eating other living creatures ..." indeed "survival" looks like something emergent, if looked from some outer human perspective. From the inner human perspective, as you said ("each living creatures is eating other living creatures), we can agree on that we need to "do something" in order to survive. The expression "the environment provides clues to survival and to existence" tries to include both perspectives mentioned above. Beg your pardon if I couldn't make myself more clear from the beginning.

              2. Artificial Intelligence is a construct of Human intelligence. Do you need a self-aware robot to confirm your self-awareness?

              3. For the present essay I used just the needed languages. I never said that there couldn't exist other types of language (as a matter of fact, I thing we agree that there are a lot more

              4. You are correct again when you say that "...humanity at each discovery of a so-called "immutable" law, find new essential conditions ", but why are they valid just before discovering the next one? If you would find, this year, in nature/reality one "immutable law", and next year you would find another one which has no direct relation with the first one ( but nature/reality couldn't exist without one of them). Next year you find nothing. In the fourth year you find a third "immutable law". And so on goes one's life... The question is: "Does the finding of a third "immutable law" makes the first one less immutable?" As far as they respect the condition of independency (no direct relationship between them) it seems that they are on equal positions (like nominal variables, if you like a statistical term).

              Silviu

                Dear Corciovei Silviu

                Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay and also for answering my points regarding yours.

                I will begin with the points you ask on your essay :

                1.I think we both agree here. It is quite clear to me what you mean.

                2.Yes. But here it is important to make the difference between intelligence and awareness/consciousness. As you say we are constructing artificial intelligence. Intelligence is just data/information, the algorithms of software can compare data to resolve the mathematics, and give solutions to questions. Awareness is not achieved, sometimes "it looks like" awareness because of the complexity of the software, but it will stay only a "yes or no" phenomenon.

                3.Indeed there are ways of communication that we will perhaps never be aware of because we have only five senses.

                4.In the middle ages the immutable law was that the sun was turning around the earth, and really there were used such complex calculations that it really "seemed" to be true. The later immutable law was that it was the other way around. So the first one is no longer valuable. Humanity is only existing one second...Our "intelligence is also existing only one second and we think that we know already a lot (not me). We are indeed creating artificial intelligence but not artificial Consciousness, the new quantum devices (working with qubits) that can not only "choose" between yes or no, maybe the new evolution towards Artificial Consciousness (AC). AC will have then the "I" and the "will" to stay "alive", without the need to "eat" other AC's. The only "eating" will be the sharing of intelligence (information).

                On your question on my essay: What is consciousness? I partly gave already the answer above under 4. But I will try to answer this (ultimate difficult) question very short by asking you: "What is the "I" (yourself, ego) inside you? That is the part of you that is aware of its emergent entity. It TRIES to UNDERSTAND the signals from emerging reality around YOU. It TRIES to UNDERSTAND the foundational HOW and also WHY. This consciousness is not the result of a complexity called brains, but it is the origin of the complexity. (You will not find the announcer inside the radio).

                I hope that this answers your questions. I rated you an 8 today.

                Wilhelmus de Wilde