"Fundamental" could become nonessential for itself by corciovei silviu

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

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

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

Dear Corciovei

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Dear Silviu,

your essay is dense and original. I especially liked the example of baseball with which you illustrate the fundamental "equivalence" between an "inner" and an "outer" perspective on the evolution of the universe, despite their opposition. An important difference between the two perspectives is however undeniable: an outer perspective can never have a scientific validity, because it refers to some hypothetical reality or external agent (the "player") on which we can only speculate. Instead, an inner perspective is in principle within the reach of science, even if we do not know if we can ever be complete and definitive.

A question: You say:

"Confined to a logic and rational thinking, we could suppose the adaptation is a result of intelligence."

This seems to mean that intelligence is innate. So how do you explain the adaptability of beings that, from our point of view, are not intelligent? The opposite point of view can also be argued, namely that intelligence is the result, not the cause, of adaptation. I do not know which of the two is the correct perspective.

All the best,

Giovanni

Dear Silviu,

I am very grateful that you paid attention to my work. It is critical work, that is way it is difficult to find many supporters. I'm glad that you are one of them. You says //In one way or another, the mathematical language will have to be "translated" in a verbal one, more permissive then inductive.// I am saying that math is a small part of common logical analytical system, which must be serve as a must fundamental tool of natural science. So, math cannot "work" himself and separately that can brought to some of certain valuable results.

I thing you are well realized this reality and the inevitability of serious revision in the methodology of present theoretical physics.

Thus, I wish you successes in this contest and I will support you!

Best regards.

Silviu,

Short and seemingly simple explanation but quite impressive in its ability to expound. I particularly like going from the simple example of kicking the ball and the energy applied, then expanding it to dark energy and the expansion of the universe. I like the verbal subjective combined with the mathematical precision. Your narrative helps to simplify the fundamentals of the universe.

Jim

Thankyou Silviu for your kind comments on my essay.

I think this kind of metaphysics (as you display here) which tries to place physics correctly in terms of linguistics and meaning and other complications, is particularly important in advancing our knowledge. Well done indeed.

Best,

Jack

Dear Corciovei,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding. The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Silviu,

The way in which you eliminated the potential ontology on fundamental is, I believe, the correct method of analysis; I suppose you must have seen something of that in my own essay. Your write up is short and sweet, enjoyable with just the right amount of brevity.

Regards, Aditya

Hello Corciovel,

Your conclusion is both thoughtful and useful.

One only needs to identify what is fundamental when one needs to identify what is fundamental. Utility is what drives such needs. If something is potentially useful, then use it.

Notwithstanding the above statement, your 'game': "What is Fundamental" does demand a singular answer. Perhaps your reference to 'being aware of yourself' is as good an answer as any. In the absence of consciousness, anything and everything is of no importance. A stone is just a stone!

I agree that "fundamental" is an idea; so, the FQXi question either remains open and unanswered, or our attention is redirected to the word "What", to ask 'What is "What"?', or simply to respond to the original question "What is Fundamental" with the answer "Yes".

I shall look forward to reading more about your 'fundamental' thoughts in future FQXi essay contests.

Cheers,

Gary.

Silviu

Great essay. I liked it a lot. Nice try by the way "re-stating the rules of the game so that your essay wins". I wish I had thought to do this. I wonder if you have convinced the judges :)

I've dont so much reading these past few days. Thanks for only filling three pages. I could happily have read more, but was also glad for short and sweet.

Its good that you recognize the influence our language tools have over the way we form our ideas. You see the importance of understanding ourselves, as part of the challenge of ourselves understanding the universe.

I know you have a good sense of humor. Perhaps you will inject more of it into next years essay. I might think about doing the same.

I think I'm had enough computer time this last month to last the rest of the year. I'm going surfing to clear my head. Let us talk again

Thank you & best regards

Steve

corciovei,

I think the system malfunctioned. I don't see my comment from before on 2/23/18 when I rated your great essay.

Jim

Dear Silviu,

I've read your essay. It's only 3 pages long, put it packs in a lot of ideas! I found some of them really interesting, and similar in some aspects to the ones I presented in my essay, which explains why you liked it a lot.

I agree with what you say at the top of page 2: there can be more than one "essential condition" (fundamental) to the same system, so fundamentality can be multiple. I especially like it when you write:

"It's like looking in a mirror and asking "what is fundamental for such a state?", and the answer would dash, "me and the mirror, in the same way", or neither I, nor the mirror"

This reminds me of the hypothesis of "co-emergence" that I defended in my essay for last year's FQXi contest.

You go on to write that "the word "fundamental" is a creation of the human intelligence in the attempt of describing an observed phenomenon. That "single thing" can be seen from at least two perspectives, an inner and an outer perspective." I agree that there are two ways to approach the issue of fundamentality, what I call ontological and epistemological fundamentality in my essay.

Thank you for contributing your ideas to this contest, and good luck!

Best wishes,

Marc

Dear Silviu,

By way of saying 'thank you' for your enjoyable essay, I'd like to play your supposed 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."

My entry = my answer = existence.

PS: It's good for me to see you having clean fun with good questions. So here's a friendly one from me; prefaced on the I hope that a gift (to a keen student, by way of encouragement: for entering, not necessarily for winning) might be presented by you: How about a question or comment on my essay?

[nb: rest assured that your otherwise busyness will in no way offend.]

PPS: My friend Judith just now tells me that her answer is: preexistence! [Which is OK; for she (also a keen student: and sending her regards) would be equally happy to just read the above-mentioned gift.]

With best regards, and wishing you every success in harmlessly hacking the human brain;

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