The end of Questions by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

Dear Michael Schmitz,

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

Dear Michael,

I'm very much in agreement with what you say in your essay. However, dont the last two sentences confuse or even invalidate what you said before? Maybe I haven't got the message yet?

Heinrich

Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz, you said briefly and clearly. I will say that light spreads in an environment that is space and which, according to Descartes, is matter, so its speed is the limit for any movement.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 questions.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Hi Jeffrey,

Funny short essay. Nice to read. One of the quests in my essay is the search of a meta-math function for physical laws. The meta-math function should be able to tell, how a law is to be applied and what its terms means. As physicist, I think sometimes, that the whole meaning of a law, lies in the law itself. But this is not true. Sadly I did not find the meta-math function for physical laws.

Best regards,

Luca

"A meta-math function will define and help to find the fundamental nature of the universe" if something has taught us the scientific method during the last centuries is that mathematical/philosophical approaches cannot say us which is the fundamental nature of the universe. The history is full of skeletons of mathematical ideas that looked ok in paper, but do not describe universe.

Mathematics aren't the basis of the universe. Feynman explained the difference between mathematics and physics in his lectures.

"The scientific method does not prove a hypothesis true, but can only determine if something is false. The more a hypothesis or theory is tested the more certain we can be of its "truth", but absolute certainty will never be found by science". I disagree. We can prove hypothesis. E.g. Newtonian laws of motion continue applying to day so well as they did about 300 years ago, because the hypothesis that they describe motion was proven, so it cannot be disproved. Also the concept of truth used in science is not the older concept of truth used in other disciplines. Something is true on science if the difference between what the model states and measurements is smaller than the margin of error.

I do not think evolution is a fundamental principle of biology. I think it can be derived from atomic-molecular biology. The scientific method and evolution are not the same process, not even close; one is a method invented by humans, the other is a natural process.

Science is a "human construct". This does not throw away the idea that science could be developed by non-humans. For instance aliens or machines. Robot scientists have already been created.

Science gives true answers to questions about Nature. It is other disciplines as Philosophy which never provide any relevant answer.

Despite what some claim, string theory is not science, it is a kind of New Age religion.

Obviously "the fundamentals of Physics" are "in doubt", otherwise we had found the final theory. But there is no problem with taking a set of basic fundamentals and work with them until some experiment show they are in reality derived concepts. All the formal structure that arises from assuming those concepts are derived will continue to work so well as it does today. That is why we teach thermodynamics and its principles today, despite those principles can be derived from more fundamental principles.

Dear Jeff Schmitz I again read your short and beautiful essay. I will add that the fundamental will be an irrational number, it is possible - this is the number 3,14......

I wish you success! Dizhechko Boris

Dear Prof Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

Very nicely sated in in your OP...." A meta-math function will define and help to find the fundamental nature of the universe." and you are correct in saying that...." The problem is the meta-math function is the scientific method and the fundamental element is not easy to find and might not be that important in the end."

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

Jeff,

Although I think a little more text formatting would have made your short, to-the-point essay more accessible, it was fun to read and you made several interesting points, often with humor. Your suggestion that "the answer is 42" might have been mocking the millennia-long human search for perfect, simple, satisfying integer numbers in nature made me chuckle out loud. That to me is the most perfectly done comedy scene in all of science fiction, but it had never occurred to me that it might also be a bit satire of science. (And occasional real finds, such as the orbital resonance that really does make Venus rise regularly at five different points in morning and evening skies, always helped drive the search.)

I most liked your points about how meta-functions may be relevant to what is fundamental. You gave a nice definition of how meta-functions are formal arguments that are well-structured overall, but for some reason also contain a component that goes just beyond the possibility of formally proving them to be true, with Gödel's incompleteness theorem being a specific example. I might phase the same point by saying that meta-functions are unprogrammable, that is, they contain some stubborn, intransigent, persistent point that somehow just cannot be cannot be expressed in any formal programming language. At some point you are forced instead to insert a comment to the effect of "Then a miracle occurs!" before you can drop back to using well-defined, fully formal statements again.

Another possible example that came to mind for me is the idea of living within a simulated universe. The smaller-scale, more solipsistic version, and easier-to-envision version of that, only the observer would be simulated. In either case, the problem with living in a simulated universe is that even though you might suspect it to be simulated, and even though you may be able to collect all sorts of statistical evidence and anecdotes that support suspicion, you will also by definition lack the kind of external access or presence that would allow you to prove your suspicion conclusively. It becomes a meta-theorem, one you can never prove definitively.

So again, thanks for the essay. It is an interesting rumination on when it comes to things fundamental to the universe, some things may be beyond our ability ever to specify with certainty.

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger, Fundamental as Fewer Bits

Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz,

Thank you for your gracious comments and for the welcome advice to humanize the Tavern with sights, sounds, smells, etc. I may rewrite this using your advice for another venue (although there few venues like FQXi).

Having now read your essay, I agree with you that "the assumption that the rules of quantum mechanics apply to gravity waves and neutrinos, but we have no experimental evidence for this assumption."

You might like to read the comment on my thread [Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:56 GMT] based on Cristinel Stoica's excellent discussion of isomorphisms.

Thanks again for giving meaningful remarks on my essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jeffrey,

"If one were looking for the key to the universe, the scientific method might seem a poor choice, because science seems a human construct"

I would say that the scientific method gives us discovery and my contention is that discovery through the scientific method brings new knowledge that causes what is fundamental to evolve. So we can only speculate about what is fundamental, pretty much what you suggest. Therefore, fundamental is only of value as an inspiration, as part of a concept or theory that you continually test and examine leading to more discovery. It's like searching for the Holy Grail. Now we think ToE with our limited knowledge. What will it be with more knowledge? I share your objectivity and your open mind.

Good Luck in the contest that is quickly winding down.

Jim

Jeffrey,

Incidentally, hope you get a chance to check mine.

Jim